Forgive me if I fail to get worked up over something "unprecedented" over a timer period that is the geologic equivalent of a sneeze.
Do you seriously think that has never happened before in the history of the planet? Which has at times been warmer on average than it is even now of promises to be over the next 100 years or so?
Okay, you're forgiven. Given the nature of the greenhouse effect, which can go both positive or negative, we can get spikes. especially in the negative direction. Sulfur Dioxide from volcanos can cause a temporary lowering of global or regional temperatures. in 1815, after the Volcano Tamora erupted in indonesia and New England and Europe were particularly hard hit, causing the infamous "Year without a summer." Krakatau and more recently Pinatubo and El Chichon volcanos did the same thing.
The gases that make up the positive influences on temperatures aren't as short term, but plain old weather can have rea;;y short term effects too.
What becomes of interest is when multiple years have warmer than average temps. It becomes very difficult to use randomness as an excuse to explain them away.
As noted, I have been challenged that global warming doesn't exist because the antarctic was gaining ice. It does perhaps become a little more difficult to use that chestnut as solid proof debunking the greenhouse effect.
The trees are fine. All this talk about trees is because the Califronia taxpayers will not build new infrastructure for farmers.
So you are telling me that the US Forest Service wants to build new irrigation projects for farmers. Here's the link to the actual forest service report. http://www.fs.fed.us/news/rele...
Here's photos of dead trees perhaps you'll claim photoshopped by the USDA? The Farmers? So they can implement the ultimate non-sequitur solution? http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/ca...
So the warmer than normal temperatures and drought conditions have enabled bark beetles to infest and kill more trees, and you think this is a plot by farmers to build new irrigation projects that will have zero impact on the situation.
This is the logic that says - "Honey, the car broke down, so I'm buying a new furnace and computer."
What happens is the warmer and dryer conditions don't kill off the beetles, so they infest the trees and kill them. Under normal circumstances, they wouldn't do that. We have a similar issue near me with the Emerald ash borer, a beautiful green critter that has been devastating forests. As in miles of dead trees. http://ento.psu.edu/extension/...http://buffalonews.com/2016/06...
EAB isn't based on drought or temps, just accidentally introduced and no local predators. But no, the trees are not fine.Neither are teh ones in Cali. They're dead, Jim!
The UK switched to gas years ago. It was Thatcher and her successor John Major who phased out the British coal industry since it was uneconomical. Odd that in America the preservation of coal is seen as a conservative ideal, whereas in the UK it was the left that was trying to keep it alive in the interests of the workers. I guess the definition of conservative in America must require anything that beats the crap out of the environment whether it pays its way or not.
No, it was just a cynical pumping of the people who may have lost their jobs by the conservatives. They aren't going to get their jobs back, but thanks for the vote. Also, the people who own the Conservative politicians have a pretty big self interest in preserving coal use, so its a core principle.
Regardless, automation has done more to eliminate coal jobs than anything else. What once upon a time took armies of men, digging with pickaxes and dinky cars is now accomplished by a few people.
been doing that do hundreds of debian based OS including Ubuntu for over a decade just fine. you must suck. buy windows, it's for you.
I'm going to try to post something without it getting marked troll or flamebait.
I am almost certain that the reason that some people seem to have so much trouble with Linux is they are trying to impose a Windows workflow, or maybe had some 15 year old experience they are relating.
I have had few little problems with installs and updates of the modern distros that it approaches perfect. As long as I have a internet connection, the install process just goes out and finds what is needed, and I mostly just sit back and do something else while its happening. Last problem I had was a sound card driver on a Toshiba laptop, and that had to be 8 years ago. Even then, it was available the next day. I wrote that off to a really new laptop.
Dunno if its because some folks try it without an internet connection - we don't want to do that. Or perhaps had the little install or update window showing the progress, and saw a warning - which means not a whole lot in the Linux world - and they stopped the install or update.
tl;dr version - I much prefer installing and updating Linux to Windows.
No matter how much water you put on a straw man, it's not going to grow into anything.
At what point di dyou start reading this thread. I'm not th eone who was trying to talk about all the Water California was going to have if they built nuc plants for desalinization.
The first goal of any desalination program would be to supply drinking water to the human population.
I don't even disagree with you if they end up needing desalininization for drinking water. Of course, the irrigation water will alomst certainly be all gone by that time, and it won't do a damn thing for the one third of California's trees that are dead now, and possibly more later.
Then we would consider the cost of adding enough desalinated water to underwrite whatever level of agricultural use we deem to be necessary. This would be decided area by area and crop by crop, as Californians would ask themselves questions like
1. Can we do without those water-intensive almonds?
Well, for what it's worth, it isn't likely that almonds would ever survive in a drip irrigation world. Because the cost of this desalinated water wouldn't remotely support them, and almost certainly not support the form of irrigation used now.
If I were to hazard a guess, California might implement the first large scale true factory farming system. It's a guess, but they probbly want to continue their dominance in producing food for the country, and controlling the water usage will be a lot easier if they can control the evaporation rate and side waste. Huge warehouse type buildings that might take advantage of the ample sunlight, but can recycle water might just be the long term solution to this problem.
If we plant varieties of corn, lettuce, etc. that have been bioengineered to need less water, will we fear-beswacked liberals deign to eat them, or will we have to sell them to the shriveled Republican enclaves that persist in places like Newport Beach?
Well, will the liberals eat the genetically modified foods? Because that's what you are talking about. But that gets us even further from the discussion of the effects of the long drought on the non-irrigated parts of the state.
Regardless, are you calling my numbers all wrong, or just declaring I'm using a straw man so you can strut around like a cock-a-hoop and relish your easy post truth type utterly simple rebuttal? I made a BOE, and really rough calculation of just how much water it would take to water the state back to semi-arid conditions. If you don't like them, knock off a few powers of ten, it's still close enough to impossible, and shows Cali's increasingly desperate water problem.
My grandmother used to keep a big wooden barrel that she'd put in the droppings she'd scoop up from the chickens. Then she let it fill with rain water. She had a saucepan by it, and she'd fertilize her big garden with the resulting water at the top. We called it manure tea. She was known for her gardening prowess, and raised 8 healthy strapping kids by herself during the depression. We did have a rigid rule about washing the veggies for sure.
What she didn't tell you was that, like Achilles, when you were born she held each of you by the heel and dipped you in the rain barrel. Made you strong and healthy.
That must be why I always asked her "How do I get out of this chickenshit outfit?"
Nobody is talking of using desalination to save trees.
Why do so many people say "Nobody is talking about X, when it's pretty obvious that a lot of people have been talking about X?
The trees are just an excuse to build more mega irrigation infrastructure.
Mega irrigation infrastructure has to have water to irrigate with. The closest possible water source is the Columbia River. Next up is the great lakes. The Colorado is already pretty well tapped out, and in use by the states it runs through. Well drilling is not only depleting the aquifer, but the land over it is subsiding.
TL;DR version - to build irrigation infrestructure you gotta have water.
But city people are tired of paying huge taxes to build expensive irrigation infrastructure so that mega rich farming corporations can get cheap water to grow export crops.
And that water is going to come from where? You are just reciting political screed, and I forgot to add the liberal "rich corporationz" battle cry to the "Too many Regulationz" whine of the libertarians, and the completely useless "Fucking libtards!" of the right wing.
You don't have the water to distribute. The whole crew of ya have no idea what you are talking about. There is no irrigation system that can be put in for the trees, no corporation or libertarian or god fearing social conservative cand make that happen because the water isn't there to use.
And they justify all this spending by saying the cities may run out of drinking water. The cities are saying f u to the farm lobbyists in Sacramento.
That's a completely different story, and is merely people adjusting to ground truth.
We are not paying for anymore mega irrigation infrastructure. If the drinking water situation gets bad we will desalinate for drinking water and let the farming corporations go to hell.
Power to the people oh yeah! You are trying to bring a complete different argument to this matter. Trees are the matter.
Trees are not often irrigated. Not are they often planted, other than silly water hungry ones like almond trees.
And most trees can handle short term water deficits pretty well. But like all other plants, they have a limit.
That limit has nothing to to with fatcat capitalists, or the southern flag wavers, or Libertarians, or leeburulls.
An't been enough rain, Aint been enough snow. The water that California gets from wells and th eColorado river and other out of state sources doesn't have anything to do with non-irrigated ttrees dying.
Plain and simple, Cali needs more precipitation, or is going to become more of a desert than it is now.
Let's pump seawater inland using solar thermal heat pipes, and use it to grow algae for biofuel. Harvest the salt for commercial purposes. Return as much water to aquifers in the process. The waste from the algae-to-biofuel process is compost, so it's benevolent.
WAT! That's crazy talk!
Next thing you know you'll be agitatin for electric cars, solar cells and other brain-dead ideas.
The aquifer issue is a biggie in addition to the other ones http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs0690... Some places in California - as well as other places like Houston TX are sinking.
We have to face it, we need to come up with solutions. Or maybe precipitates.
Pfft.... ever try to do a dist upgrade on an Ubuntu box? I give it.... 60% chance of working flawlessly. 20% chance of working OK. 20% chance of making you say.... fuck it! I'm restoring from backup....
I've done 2 Linux Mints, 2 Ubuntu Mates, and a Lubuntu total upgrade so far this month, and all have worked perfectly. As did the number I did earlier this year. By your calculations I'm in for a long spell of failure.
I was a little concerned about the Lubuntu Upgrade since it was on a netbook that hadn't been used for a while. But it was flawless. In any event, a better track record than Windows 10 so far.
I dunno where you guys get your facts and figures anyhow.
But if your goal is to speak truths, guess what? You're going to piss people off. There's nothing wrong with treating some of the extra-special users of Slashdot who think they're the shit as canaries. There are definitely certain users on this site who get angry when you hit the mark.
To the point where I consider people marking me as troll is validation of my statement's truth.
And if I can piss off people who are unencumbered by the thought process by forcing them to reply to the truth, that's a pretty good thing.
Would that be a white-hat troll?
Utterly ridiculous desalination by building nuclear plants along the coasts plan, and attempting to recreate the immense amount of water needed to restore Cali to semi arid status, complete ignorance of the byproducts - salt is the least of the problems there, is just beyond the pale. We're supposed to be smart people.
And then there is this weird meme of California people being all brain dead libtards.
That must be why they would be the sixth largest economy in the world if they were a separate country.
It's always great fun to see people trotting out their favorite boogeymen or pet projects for this sort of thing. The usual actors can be seen agitating for nuc power, the far right decides that the problem is because Libtards!, the Libertarians know for certain that it is onerous regulations.
And piss all, I'm stuck here with my useless numbers and calculations
There are some problems that our post truth era, fact free solutions can't fix.
But it's true that if an exctended megadrought, like the one that wiped out the Sinagua and Anasazi in the 1400s, were to hit once again, the much larger population of today's California would have to fire up the nukes and desalinate on a massive scale. If we still had Democrats like Roosevelt, that would be doable.
You have the calculations on just how much desalination would have to be performed to replace the water missing via the drought situation? And if you are thinking about that massive amount of extraction by way of electrolysis, tell us what to do with the byproducts. Do the research to find out what you get besides salt.
It's so whacked that here on slashdot that the drought problem cure is just so easy. Build a bunch of nucs and use Seawater and problem solved!
Here are some extremely rough calculations to show the scale of what Slashdotters are proposing:
In order to get an inch of water over a square mile, we need 17.4 million gallons.
Cali has 163,696 square miles - obviously we wouldn't water the whole state, but if this is suppoesd to save trees, we have to water a lot of it.
That would be 2.8430904e+13 gallons of water - for one inch.
So lets take a paltry 25 inches of water per year Now we're up to 7.107726e+14 gallons of water from desalination. side note - I settled on 25 as a compromise since many areas will need more, and many less. It's still modest.
So all you have to do is build enough desalination plants to extract that amount of water to bring Cali up to a semi-arid climate. Then there's the water delivery system. The present one is constructed to bring water down, and the new one will have to do a whole lot of up.
I realize that we're in a post truth era where all problems can be solved easily, in a few sentences, but seriously does anyone think that we're up to that? Even with newer desalination methods, we're talking ridiculous amounts of effort.
Well, to clarify, they shouldn't build nuclear reactors and desalination plants. The geologically-more-stable midwest should build nuclear reactors, and then use that power to fuel coastal desalination plants.
After Enron's little stunt related to California's electrical power, good luck with getting anyone from Cali to go along with your idea.
He is not "bragging" about the ecosystem. He is listing things that he needs for Linux to be considered a "replacement"
And yet, we presumably are not tallking about a "replacement" but an alternative. That's kinda what the entire subject is about. There are alternatives. One is Windows, one is OS X, and one is Linux.
Regardless, since he is completely and totally stuck in a Windows only ecosystem, that will never ever be anything but a Windows ecosystem, his choice is perfectly clear - he has no choice whatsoever, and that is the end of the discussion for him. Windows only, no alternative, no replacement, nothing but Windows.
If you keep laughing at people who cannot move to Linux for reason X, Linux will remain at the current adoption levels.
Well, to make it perfectly clear, I have never had a deadline met because of adoption levels, it has never solved a problem for me, it hasn't even gotten me laid or anything. Adoption rate or user base means nothing to me, it's the equivalent of famous cigarettes. Or maybe the best car in the world is the Toyota Corolla (it's the most "popular so it is best, right? Perhaps it makes some people feel superior to run Windows. I dunno. I run Windows, OS X and Linux, none of those made me feel like it was doing a better job for the task at hand because of popularity.
tl;dr version - I give a flying fig about adoption levels.
As an alternative, it only has to do what the user wants it to do. You can do email - unless for some reason you have to have a Windows specific only email program. You can do web Browsing, unless you absolutely have to have Exploder or Edge. You can do Office Suites, unless you have to use the outlier non-compatible with itself Windows Office suites.
If you really think this sums up all the average user's desktop computing needs then you really have no idea about users whatsoever. Those are the tasks common to the average user, not the only things they do.
Yeah, one tends to not have a clue when supporting DOS, Windows 95 through W10 (was spared experience with 3.1) and OS X and MacOS before that from the early 90's to present day and Linux since 2010. Eddymcate me dear Coward!
Because we have been able to do those things on pretty much any desktop system that has existed for the past 3 decades, we have been able to do those things on smartphones and tablets since smartphones and tablets were invented but that isn't all that users do.
So what you are telling me is that All average consumers have Microsoft oonly solutions? Do go on!
Apparently a Linux evangelist's impression of a computer user is somebody who browses the web, sends/recieves email and does office things.
I see. Well, you can discuss that with a Linux evangelist.
Because if you suggest Photoshop, AutoCAD, Lightroom, 3ds MAX, Logic Pro, Premiere, FinalCut, ProTools, MediaComposer, Revit, Solidworks, Creo Parametric, NX, or any one of a myriad of Windows and/or MacOS software the response is always "oh but not many people use those" or "well the typical user just does web browsing, email and office".
That's because that is the correct response. I use Maya, Final Cut Pro, Soundtrack Pro, and Lightwave, as well as DogParkSDR, so I use a OSX machine for that. I use SmartSDR, so I use Bootcamp and Windows 7 for that application. I use fldigi and dire wolf and a few others that I use Linux for. I use whatever the best tool is for the job, and yes, sometimes that is Linux.
Which is why when I am involved early enough in the process, I ask the person what they will be using their computer for, and what is important to them. So often, they want to connect with others on Facebook, send photos back and forth, email and do occasional print jobs. That often prescribes a Linux machine. If they have something that uses a more specialized toolset A Windows or Mac might be best. I have advised against going with Windows 10 if at all possible. Just too brittle, and many breaks upon updates.
But ask yourself, if that latter assertion were true then how bad is desktop Linux that it can't even be a master of those things in a capacity to be able to convince users to use it for free?
While I don't give an actual rat's ass about market share, since market share never helped at all in making a deadline, or solving any problem at all, if pressured, I would speak to inertia, Ford versus Chevy syndrome, and the VHS tape effect.
Not just that, the mom and her family will be dead after N years. After that,their next of kin - what interest will they have in making sure that this organization doesn't fleece them? As others speculated above, after a number of years, when they run out of people to fleece, they'll just dump the bodies in a crematorium, have them cremated and the ashes tossed into the sea. Any cash, if left over, would just be pure gravy.
Can I play Battlefield on it? Can I play Civ 6? I guess not.
I would love to switch to Linux. The fact of the matter, nearly every program which I want to run, does not work natively on Linux. Office? Nope. Photoshop? Nope.
You brag about your closed ecosystem, while I think "poor guy is stuck running Windows."
Sorry, but just making the UI "similar" is not enough to make it an "alternative" any different than the likes of Mint.
It would need to actually be able to run every Windows based applications and games, without issues, for it to be an "alternative".
No. If you have to have an OS that runs every single Windows program, well then poor lad - you are stuck with Windows.
As an alternative, it only has to do what the user wants it to do. You can do email - unless for some reason you have to have a Windows specific only email program. You can do web Browsing, unless you absolutely have to have Exploder or Edge. You can do Office Suites, unless you have to use the outlier non-compatible with itself Windows Office suites. In that case, you have my sympathy
What you are trying to say is that it has to duplicate Windows and all it's programs.
Why would we want to mess up our computers that way?
Making a desktop look like Windows 10 is hardly the requirement for a replacement. Can it run Windows software, or replacements for them in a way no other linux distro could? I think we know the answer, hell no.
Besides, it won't screw up your computer like genuine Windows does on updates.
The cost of preserving the body for an infinite amount of time in this case was £37,000, which was paid by the girl's mother's family.
Missed that, thanks much.
It's interesting that apparently that amount is going to cover the years of immersion in Liquid Nitrogen, the costs of revival, and allow the people running the company to pay themselves.
One is not out of line if they smell a Ponzi pyramid scheme here. Not the typical investment type, but these folk need a constant new stream of people. It does fit the typical confidence game requirements of narcissism or emotion or greed that predispose some people to invest in loser schemes with sketchy business plans.
If they're eating chicken muck I don't know how you can make seaweed the more attractive option for the farmer. Where will he put the mountains of chicken waste now? I have 5 chickens, they make a lot more waste than I can deal with.
It is a good question - if a gross one. But we gotta remember the chicken shit goes in and we get cow shit back.
There's also the humane issue, and the what we're willing to eat issue. I know people who refuse to eat catfish because they grub in the mud, but will happily gobble down a burger from a cow that ate chicken shit it's whole life. I'm a dedicated carnivore, but until they are harvested, we should treat them right.
The big issue with chicken manure is it's so darn powerful. You've probably seen what it does to the yard. My grandmother used to keep a big wooden barrel that she'd put in the droppings she'd scoop up from the chickens. Then she let it fill with rain water. She had a saucepan by it, and she'd fertilize her big garden with the resulting water at the top. We called it manure tea. She was known for her gardening prowess, and raised 8 healthy strapping kids by herself during the depression. We did have a rigid rule about washing the veggies for sure.
I probably eat 1000X as much seaweed as the average American. It's tasty, cheap, a great source of anti-oxidants, requires no farming... It's a win-win.
The crispy thin green sheets of it are pretty darn good as well. Sometimes I eat those like potato chips, and very low calorie and way tasty.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgive me if I fail to get worked up over something "unprecedented" over a timer period that is the geologic equivalent of a sneeze.
Do you seriously think that has never happened before in the history of the planet? Which has at times been warmer on average than it is even now of promises to be over the next 100 years or so?
Okay, you're forgiven. Given the nature of the greenhouse effect, which can go both positive or negative, we can get spikes. especially in the negative direction. Sulfur Dioxide from volcanos can cause a temporary lowering of global or regional temperatures. in 1815, after the Volcano Tamora erupted in indonesia and New England and Europe were particularly hard hit, causing the infamous "Year without a summer." Krakatau and more recently Pinatubo and El Chichon volcanos did the same thing.
The gases that make up the positive influences on temperatures aren't as short term, but plain old weather can have rea;;y short term effects too.
What becomes of interest is when multiple years have warmer than average temps. It becomes very difficult to use randomness as an excuse to explain them away.
As noted, I have been challenged that global warming doesn't exist because the antarctic was gaining ice. It does perhaps become a little more difficult to use that chestnut as solid proof debunking the greenhouse effect.
But yeah, you are right. It's just weather.
The trees are fine. All this talk about trees is because the Califronia taxpayers will not build new infrastructure for farmers.
So you are telling me that the US Forest Service wants to build new irrigation projects for farmers. Here's the link to the actual forest service report. http://www.fs.fed.us/news/rele...
Here's photos of dead trees perhaps you'll claim photoshopped by the USDA? The Farmers? So they can implement the ultimate non-sequitur solution? http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/ca... So the warmer than normal temperatures and drought conditions have enabled bark beetles to infest and kill more trees, and you think this is a plot by farmers to build new irrigation projects that will have zero impact on the situation.
This is the logic that says - "Honey, the car broke down, so I'm buying a new furnace and computer."
What happens is the warmer and dryer conditions don't kill off the beetles, so they infest the trees and kill them. Under normal circumstances, they wouldn't do that. We have a similar issue near me with the Emerald ash borer, a beautiful green critter that has been devastating forests. As in miles of dead trees. http://ento.psu.edu/extension/... http://buffalonews.com/2016/06...
EAB isn't based on drought or temps, just accidentally introduced and no local predators. But no, the trees are not fine.Neither are teh ones in Cali. They're dead, Jim!
The UK switched to gas years ago. It was Thatcher and her successor John Major who phased out the British coal industry since it was uneconomical. Odd that in America the preservation of coal is seen as a conservative ideal, whereas in the UK it was the left that was trying to keep it alive in the interests of the workers. I guess the definition of conservative in America must require anything that beats the crap out of the environment whether it pays its way or not.
No, it was just a cynical pumping of the people who may have lost their jobs by the conservatives. They aren't going to get their jobs back, but thanks for the vote. Also, the people who own the Conservative politicians have a pretty big self interest in preserving coal use, so its a core principle.
Regardless, automation has done more to eliminate coal jobs than anything else. What once upon a time took armies of men, digging with pickaxes and dinky cars is now accomplished by a few people.
been doing that do hundreds of debian based OS including Ubuntu for over a decade just fine. you must suck. buy windows, it's for you.
I'm going to try to post something without it getting marked troll or flamebait.
I am almost certain that the reason that some people seem to have so much trouble with Linux is they are trying to impose a Windows workflow, or maybe had some 15 year old experience they are relating.
I have had few little problems with installs and updates of the modern distros that it approaches perfect. As long as I have a internet connection, the install process just goes out and finds what is needed, and I mostly just sit back and do something else while its happening. Last problem I had was a sound card driver on a Toshiba laptop, and that had to be 8 years ago. Even then, it was available the next day. I wrote that off to a really new laptop.
Dunno if its because some folks try it without an internet connection - we don't want to do that. Or perhaps had the little install or update window showing the progress, and saw a warning - which means not a whole lot in the Linux world - and they stopped the install or update.
tl;dr version - I much prefer installing and updating Linux to Windows.
No matter how much water you put on a straw man, it's not going to grow into anything.
At what point di dyou start reading this thread. I'm not th eone who was trying to talk about all the Water California was going to have if they built nuc plants for desalinization.
The first goal of any desalination program would be to supply drinking water to the human population.
I don't even disagree with you if they end up needing desalininization for drinking water. Of course, the irrigation water will alomst certainly be all gone by that time, and it won't do a damn thing for the one third of California's trees that are dead now, and possibly more later.
Then we would consider the cost of adding enough desalinated water to underwrite whatever level of agricultural use we deem to be necessary. This would be decided area by area and crop by crop, as Californians would ask themselves questions like
1. Can we do without those water-intensive almonds?
Well, for what it's worth, it isn't likely that almonds would ever survive in a drip irrigation world. Because the cost of this desalinated water wouldn't remotely support them, and almost certainly not support the form of irrigation used now.
If I were to hazard a guess, California might implement the first large scale true factory farming system. It's a guess, but they probbly want to continue their dominance in producing food for the country, and controlling the water usage will be a lot easier if they can control the evaporation rate and side waste. Huge warehouse type buildings that might take advantage of the ample sunlight, but can recycle water might just be the long term solution to this problem.
If we plant varieties of corn, lettuce, etc. that have been bioengineered to need less water, will we fear-beswacked liberals deign to eat them, or will we have to sell them to the shriveled Republican enclaves that persist in places like Newport Beach?
Well, will the liberals eat the genetically modified foods? Because that's what you are talking about. But that gets us even further from the discussion of the effects of the long drought on the non-irrigated parts of the state.
Regardless, are you calling my numbers all wrong, or just declaring I'm using a straw man so you can strut around like a cock-a-hoop and relish your easy post truth type utterly simple rebuttal? I made a BOE, and really rough calculation of just how much water it would take to water the state back to semi-arid conditions. If you don't like them, knock off a few powers of ten, it's still close enough to impossible, and shows Cali's increasingly desperate water problem.
My grandmother used to keep a big wooden barrel that she'd put in the droppings she'd scoop up from the chickens. Then she let it fill with rain water. She had a saucepan by it, and she'd fertilize her big garden with the resulting water at the top. We called it manure tea. She was known for her gardening prowess, and raised 8 healthy strapping kids by herself during the depression. We did have a rigid rule about washing the veggies for sure.
What she didn't tell you was that, like Achilles, when you were born she held each of you by the heel and dipped you in the rain barrel. Made you strong and healthy.
That must be why I always asked her "How do I get out of this chickenshit outfit?"
Nobody is talking of using desalination to save trees.
Why do so many people say "Nobody is talking about X, when it's pretty obvious that a lot of people have been talking about X?
The trees are just an excuse to build more mega irrigation infrastructure.
Mega irrigation infrastructure has to have water to irrigate with. The closest possible water source is the Columbia River. Next up is the great lakes. The Colorado is already pretty well tapped out, and in use by the states it runs through. Well drilling is not only depleting the aquifer, but the land over it is subsiding.
TL;DR version - to build irrigation infrestructure you gotta have water.
But city people are tired of paying huge taxes to build expensive irrigation infrastructure so that mega rich farming corporations can get cheap water to grow export crops.
And that water is going to come from where? You are just reciting political screed, and I forgot to add the liberal "rich corporationz" battle cry to the "Too many Regulationz" whine of the libertarians, and the completely useless "Fucking libtards!" of the right wing.
You don't have the water to distribute. The whole crew of ya have no idea what you are talking about. There is no irrigation system that can be put in for the trees, no corporation or libertarian or god fearing social conservative cand make that happen because the water isn't there to use.
And they justify all this spending by saying the cities may run out of drinking water. The cities are saying f u to the farm lobbyists in Sacramento.
That's a completely different story, and is merely people adjusting to ground truth.
We are not paying for anymore mega irrigation infrastructure. If the drinking water situation gets bad we will desalinate for drinking water and let the farming corporations go to hell.
Power to the people oh yeah! You are trying to bring a complete different argument to this matter. Trees are the matter.
Trees are not often irrigated. Not are they often planted, other than silly water hungry ones like almond trees.
And most trees can handle short term water deficits pretty well. But like all other plants, they have a limit.
That limit has nothing to to with fatcat capitalists, or the southern flag wavers, or Libertarians, or leeburulls.
An't been enough rain, Aint been enough snow. The water that California gets from wells and th eColorado river and other out of state sources doesn't have anything to do with non-irrigated ttrees dying.
Plain and simple, Cali needs more precipitation, or is going to become more of a desert than it is now.
Let's pump seawater inland using solar thermal heat pipes, and use it to grow algae for biofuel. Harvest the salt for commercial purposes. Return as much water to aquifers in the process. The waste from the algae-to-biofuel process is compost, so it's benevolent.
WAT! That's crazy talk!
Next thing you know you'll be agitatin for electric cars, solar cells and other brain-dead ideas.
The aquifer issue is a biggie in addition to the other ones http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs0690... Some places in California - as well as other places like Houston TX are sinking.
We have to face it, we need to come up with solutions. Or maybe precipitates.
Pfft.... ever try to do a dist upgrade on an Ubuntu box? I give it.... 60% chance of working flawlessly. 20% chance of working OK. 20% chance of making you say.... fuck it! I'm restoring from backup....
I've done 2 Linux Mints, 2 Ubuntu Mates, and a Lubuntu total upgrade so far this month, and all have worked perfectly. As did the number I did earlier this year. By your calculations I'm in for a long spell of failure.
I was a little concerned about the Lubuntu Upgrade since it was on a netbook that hadn't been used for a while. But it was flawless. In any event, a better track record than Windows 10 so far.
I dunno where you guys get your facts and figures anyhow.
But if your goal is to speak truths, guess what? You're going to piss people off. There's nothing wrong with treating some of the extra-special users of Slashdot who think they're the shit as canaries. There are definitely certain users on this site who get angry when you hit the mark.
To the point where I consider people marking me as troll is validation of my statement's truth.
And if I can piss off people who are unencumbered by the thought process by forcing them to reply to the truth, that's a pretty good thing.
Would that be a white-hat troll?
Utterly ridiculous desalination by building nuclear plants along the coasts plan, and attempting to recreate the immense amount of water needed to restore Cali to semi arid status, complete ignorance of the byproducts - salt is the least of the problems there, is just beyond the pale. We're supposed to be smart people.
And then there is this weird meme of California people being all brain dead libtards.
That must be why they would be the sixth largest economy in the world if they were a separate country.
It's always great fun to see people trotting out their favorite boogeymen or pet projects for this sort of thing. The usual actors can be seen agitating for nuc power, the far right decides that the problem is because Libtards!, the Libertarians know for certain that it is onerous regulations.
And piss all, I'm stuck here with my useless numbers and calculations There are some problems that our post truth era, fact free solutions can't fix.
But it's true that if an exctended megadrought, like the one that wiped out the Sinagua and Anasazi in the 1400s, were to hit once again, the much larger population of today's California would have to fire up the nukes and desalinate on a massive scale. If we still had Democrats like Roosevelt, that would be doable.
You have the calculations on just how much desalination would have to be performed to replace the water missing via the drought situation? And if you are thinking about that massive amount of extraction by way of electrolysis, tell us what to do with the byproducts. Do the research to find out what you get besides salt.
It's so whacked that here on slashdot that the drought problem cure is just so easy. Build a bunch of nucs and use Seawater and problem solved!
Here are some extremely rough calculations to show the scale of what Slashdotters are proposing:
In order to get an inch of water over a square mile, we need 17.4 million gallons.
Cali has 163,696 square miles - obviously we wouldn't water the whole state, but if this is suppoesd to save trees, we have to water a lot of it.
That would be 2.8430904e+13 gallons of water - for one inch.
So lets take a paltry 25 inches of water per year Now we're up to 7.107726e+14 gallons of water from desalination. side note - I settled on 25 as a compromise since many areas will need more, and many less. It's still modest.
So all you have to do is build enough desalination plants to extract that amount of water to bring Cali up to a semi-arid climate. Then there's the water delivery system. The present one is constructed to bring water down, and the new one will have to do a whole lot of up.
I realize that we're in a post truth era where all problems can be solved easily, in a few sentences, but seriously does anyone think that we're up to that? Even with newer desalination methods, we're talking ridiculous amounts of effort.
Well, to clarify, they shouldn't build nuclear reactors and desalination plants. The geologically-more-stable midwest should build nuclear reactors, and then use that power to fuel coastal desalination plants.
After Enron's little stunt related to California's electrical power, good luck with getting anyone from Cali to go along with your idea.
He is not "bragging" about the ecosystem. He is listing things that he needs for Linux to be considered a "replacement"
And yet, we presumably are not tallking about a "replacement" but an alternative. That's kinda what the entire subject is about. There are alternatives. One is Windows, one is OS X, and one is Linux.
Regardless, since he is completely and totally stuck in a Windows only ecosystem, that will never ever be anything but a Windows ecosystem, his choice is perfectly clear - he has no choice whatsoever, and that is the end of the discussion for him. Windows only, no alternative, no replacement, nothing but Windows.
If you keep laughing at people who cannot move to Linux for reason X, Linux will remain at the current adoption levels.
Well, to make it perfectly clear, I have never had a deadline met because of adoption levels, it has never solved a problem for me, it hasn't even gotten me laid or anything. Adoption rate or user base means nothing to me, it's the equivalent of famous cigarettes. Or maybe the best car in the world is the Toyota Corolla (it's the most "popular so it is best, right? Perhaps it makes some people feel superior to run Windows. I dunno. I run Windows, OS X and Linux, none of those made me feel like it was doing a better job for the task at hand because of popularity.
tl;dr version - I give a flying fig about adoption levels.
As an alternative, it only has to do what the user wants it to do. You can do email - unless for some reason you have to have a Windows specific only email program. You can do web Browsing, unless you absolutely have to have Exploder or Edge. You can do Office Suites, unless you have to use the outlier non-compatible with itself Windows Office suites.
If you really think this sums up all the average user's desktop computing needs then you really have no idea about users whatsoever. Those are the tasks common to the average user, not the only things they do.
Yeah, one tends to not have a clue when supporting DOS, Windows 95 through W10 (was spared experience with 3.1) and OS X and MacOS before that from the early 90's to present day and Linux since 2010. Eddymcate me dear Coward!
Because we have been able to do those things on pretty much any desktop system that has existed for the past 3 decades, we have been able to do those things on smartphones and tablets since smartphones and tablets were invented but that isn't all that users do.
So what you are telling me is that All average consumers have Microsoft oonly solutions? Do go on!
Apparently a Linux evangelist's impression of a computer user is somebody who browses the web, sends/recieves email and does office things.
I see. Well, you can discuss that with a Linux evangelist.
Because if you suggest Photoshop, AutoCAD, Lightroom, 3ds MAX, Logic Pro, Premiere, FinalCut, ProTools, MediaComposer, Revit, Solidworks, Creo Parametric, NX, or any one of a myriad of Windows and/or MacOS software the response is always "oh but not many people use those" or "well the typical user just does web browsing, email and office".
That's because that is the correct response. I use Maya, Final Cut Pro, Soundtrack Pro, and Lightwave, as well as DogParkSDR, so I use a OSX machine for that. I use SmartSDR, so I use Bootcamp and Windows 7 for that application. I use fldigi and dire wolf and a few others that I use Linux for. I use whatever the best tool is for the job, and yes, sometimes that is Linux.
Which is why when I am involved early enough in the process, I ask the person what they will be using their computer for, and what is important to them. So often, they want to connect with others on Facebook, send photos back and forth, email and do occasional print jobs. That often prescribes a Linux machine. If they have something that uses a more specialized toolset A Windows or Mac might be best. I have advised against going with Windows 10 if at all possible. Just too brittle, and many breaks upon updates.
But ask yourself, if that latter assertion were true then how bad is desktop Linux that it can't even be a master of those things in a capacity to be able to convince users to use it for free?
While I don't give an actual rat's ass about market share, since market share never helped at all in making a deadline, or solving any problem at all, if pressured, I would speak to inertia, Ford versus Chevy syndrome, and the VHS tape effect.
Not even Windows runs every single Windows program.
After one Windows 10 update, My Windows computer wouldn't run anything at all, including Windows 10.
Get a room you two =p
He'd never go back to sheep.
Not just that, the mom and her family will be dead after N years. After that,their next of kin - what interest will they have in making sure that this organization doesn't fleece them? As others speculated above, after a number of years, when they run out of people to fleece, they'll just dump the bodies in a crematorium, have them cremated and the ashes tossed into the sea. Any cash, if left over, would just be pure gravy.
A legal version of the crime "abuse of a corpse"
Can I play Battlefield on it? Can I play Civ 6? I guess not. I would love to switch to Linux. The fact of the matter, nearly every program which I want to run, does not work natively on Linux. Office? Nope. Photoshop? Nope.
You brag about your closed ecosystem, while I think "poor guy is stuck running Windows."
This is why Linux will never make it on the desktop... people are totally clueless.
Clueless? That's how Windows made it.
Sorry, but just making the UI "similar" is not enough to make it an "alternative" any different than the likes of Mint. It would need to actually be able to run every Windows based applications and games, without issues, for it to be an "alternative".
No. If you have to have an OS that runs every single Windows program, well then poor lad - you are stuck with Windows.
As an alternative, it only has to do what the user wants it to do. You can do email - unless for some reason you have to have a Windows specific only email program. You can do web Browsing, unless you absolutely have to have Exploder or Edge. You can do Office Suites, unless you have to use the outlier non-compatible with itself Windows Office suites. In that case, you have my sympathy
What you are trying to say is that it has to duplicate Windows and all it's programs.
Why would we want to mess up our computers that way?
Making a desktop look like Windows 10 is hardly the requirement for a replacement. Can it run Windows software, or replacements for them in a way no other linux distro could? I think we know the answer, hell no.
Besides, it won't screw up your computer like genuine Windows does on updates.
It was the last statement in TFA:
The cost of preserving the body for an infinite amount of time in this case was £37,000, which was paid by the girl's mother's family.
Missed that, thanks much.
It's interesting that apparently that amount is going to cover the years of immersion in Liquid Nitrogen, the costs of revival, and allow the people running the company to pay themselves.
One is not out of line if they smell a Ponzi pyramid scheme here. Not the typical investment type, but these folk need a constant new stream of people. It does fit the typical confidence game requirements of narcissism or emotion or greed that predispose some people to invest in loser schemes with sketchy business plans.
If they're eating chicken muck I don't know how you can make seaweed the more attractive option for the farmer. Where will he put the mountains of chicken waste now? I have 5 chickens, they make a lot more waste than I can deal with.
It is a good question - if a gross one. But we gotta remember the chicken shit goes in and we get cow shit back.
There's also the humane issue, and the what we're willing to eat issue. I know people who refuse to eat catfish because they grub in the mud, but will happily gobble down a burger from a cow that ate chicken shit it's whole life. I'm a dedicated carnivore, but until they are harvested, we should treat them right.
The big issue with chicken manure is it's so darn powerful. You've probably seen what it does to the yard. My grandmother used to keep a big wooden barrel that she'd put in the droppings she'd scoop up from the chickens. Then she let it fill with rain water. She had a saucepan by it, and she'd fertilize her big garden with the resulting water at the top. We called it manure tea. She was known for her gardening prowess, and raised 8 healthy strapping kids by herself during the depression. We did have a rigid rule about washing the veggies for sure.
I probably eat 1000X as much seaweed as the average American. It's tasty, cheap, a great source of anti-oxidants, requires no farming... It's a win-win.
The crispy thin green sheets of it are pretty darn good as well. Sometimes I eat those like potato chips, and very low calorie and way tasty.
I want you to go to your room and think about what you've done.
No dinner for me?