And I doubt the CO was the one running the PT test. Shentino may very well have outranked or been the same rank of the person running the test. I call bullshit on your knowledge of military organization.
The proper phraseology around these parts is, "Imagine a beowulf cluster of raspberry pi's". Alternatively, you also allowed to imagine beowulf clusters of supercomputers, iPad 3's, and Jeri Ryan.
I was in a hurry and screwed up the tags last time. If you want sources, try reading Collapse by Jared Diamond and Limits to Growth by Donella Meadows. If you have sources that refute their observations, models, and predictions, please post them. If you really need more books to read after that, let me know. There's plenty more. But please stop accusing people who disagree with you of being stupid children. You're not helping the debate by being childish and insulting.
So cutting down the trees that remove CO2 from the atmosphere, expending energy to turn them into disposable goods, driving them across the country in polluting vehicles, then disposing them in the trash is helping the environment?
Actually, higher population generally results in higher population density in cities. We don't go plow a forest to built more suburban houses, we stop building houses, and start building condos, high-rise apartments, etc., etc.
And where do these city dwellers get their food, paper plates, hardwood furniture? Where does their trash go? Our rainforests are being cut down at an accelerating pace, mostly for its wood. Looking at one part of the system while ignoring the system as a whole is just naive. We are consuming, destroying, and polluting our natural resources far above a sustainable rate. What could possibly go wrong?
C'mon people, let's be a little more creative! How about running facial recognition on uploaded amateur pr0n, and locating nearby individuals who share your "interests"?
I'm actually pretty well read on the subject, and was trying to write something short. Total CO2 (anthropogenic and natural) is huge, and yes car exhaust is miniscule on this scale. Total anthropogenic CO2, however is rather large (including concrete and brick production for example). Other anthropogenic greenhouse gases like methane (from cows for instance) is also large. Net global CO2 sinks (like trees, but including other flora) are down, so how many trees we have in the US is irrelevant. We've basically outsourced our deforestation to rainforests, which pretty much just don't grow back (but at least we have nice hardwood dressers). Global warming by itself doesn't really bother me, and I think it detracts from a more pressing issue: the destruction, consumption, and pollution of our natural resources at above (probably far far above) a sustainable rate. Before a small ocean rise or small average temperature increase can really screw things up, we're likely to start running out of food and other resources, like metals, oil, etc. We've already eaten several fish to extinction recently, and prices of many other species are on the rise.
That's probably a just a little too apologetic. We are dumping too much of it for the environment to handle, especially considering how we're simultaneously destroying the trees that are supposed to be scrubbing it from the atmosphere. In addition to the greenhouse effect, CO2 dissolves in our oceans and increases the acidity leading to erosion of coral reefs, which will cascade in secondary and tertiary effects in undermining a crucial ecosystem, not to mention our own foodsource. So...non-polluting is definitely just not true, regardless of temperature. Not to mention all the other pollutants we're dumping from our car exhaust, coal burning, industrial waste, ad nauseum (pun intended). We're conducting a massive chemical experiment on our atmosphere and environment, and no one knows how it'll all shake out, but saying our meddling is "non-polluting" is unconscionably naive.
We've created an entire extrajudicial system to punish anyone who disagrees with the current regime, setup internment camps for political prisoners,
I think you've confused reality with 1984 or V for Vendetta. While I'm not a fan of everything US is doing, at least I don't make shit up to support my position.
Slashdot Mirror
And I doubt the CO was the one running the PT test. Shentino may very well have outranked or been the same rank of the person running the test. I call bullshit on your knowledge of military organization.
The proper phraseology around these parts is, "Imagine a beowulf cluster of raspberry pi's". Alternatively, you also allowed to imagine beowulf clusters of supercomputers, iPad 3's, and Jeri Ryan.
I agree. Light speed is too slow. We must go straight to Ludicrous Speed!
Yeah, like a matte gray pyramid shaped tablet with sharp corners and a proprietary 49 pin connector.
with his ultra-micromanagment
It's called nanomanagement. Hand in your geek card.
I was in a hurry and screwed up the tags last time. If you want sources, try reading Collapse by Jared Diamond and Limits to Growth by Donella Meadows. If you have sources that refute their observations, models, and predictions, please post them. If you really need more books to read after that, let me know. There's plenty more. But please stop accusing people who disagree with you of being stupid children. You're not helping the debate by being childish and insulting.
So cutting down the trees that remove CO2 from the atmosphere, expending energy to turn them into disposable goods, driving them across the country in polluting vehicles, then disposing them in the trash is helping the environment?
Really? It looks like you just pulled shit out of your ass to me.
Actually, higher population generally results in higher population density in cities. We don't go plow a forest to built more suburban houses, we stop building houses, and start building condos, high-rise apartments, etc., etc.
And where do these city dwellers get their food, paper plates, hardwood furniture? Where does their trash go? Our rainforests are being cut down at an accelerating pace, mostly for its wood. Looking at one part of the system while ignoring the system as a whole is just naive. We are consuming, destroying, and polluting our natural resources far above a sustainable rate. What could possibly go wrong?
C'mon people, let's be a little more creative! How about running facial recognition on uploaded amateur pr0n, and locating nearby individuals who share your "interests"?
Request confirmed. Please stand by for orbital laser strike. Have a nice day!
If it's a boy, he would have to be called Michael Valentine Smith.
acocunts.
It seems that it doesn't really matter how you try to pronounce this word; they're all fun to say.
And the second amendment means I have the right to encryption.
Specifically, Ubuntu Satanic Edition.
Neptune didn't clear out its orbit either (Since Pluto is in it), and it has 5 (currently known) moons too.
2 isn't enough?
Commander Taco? Are you back?
I'm actually pretty well read on the subject, and was trying to write something short. Total CO2 (anthropogenic and natural) is huge, and yes car exhaust is miniscule on this scale. Total anthropogenic CO2, however is rather large (including concrete and brick production for example). Other anthropogenic greenhouse gases like methane (from cows for instance) is also large. Net global CO2 sinks (like trees, but including other flora) are down, so how many trees we have in the US is irrelevant. We've basically outsourced our deforestation to rainforests, which pretty much just don't grow back (but at least we have nice hardwood dressers). Global warming by itself doesn't really bother me, and I think it detracts from a more pressing issue: the destruction, consumption, and pollution of our natural resources at above (probably far far above) a sustainable rate. Before a small ocean rise or small average temperature increase can really screw things up, we're likely to start running out of food and other resources, like metals, oil, etc. We've already eaten several fish to extinction recently, and prices of many other species are on the rise.
That's probably a just a little too apologetic. We are dumping too much of it for the environment to handle, especially considering how we're simultaneously destroying the trees that are supposed to be scrubbing it from the atmosphere. In addition to the greenhouse effect, CO2 dissolves in our oceans and increases the acidity leading to erosion of coral reefs, which will cascade in secondary and tertiary effects in undermining a crucial ecosystem, not to mention our own foodsource. So...non-polluting is definitely just not true, regardless of temperature. Not to mention all the other pollutants we're dumping from our car exhaust, coal burning, industrial waste, ad nauseum (pun intended). We're conducting a massive chemical experiment on our atmosphere and environment, and no one knows how it'll all shake out, but saying our meddling is "non-polluting" is unconscionably naive.
stopped shipping on June 30, 2010, just ten days over a year ago
I'm not sure what yours says, but my watch says it's 2012 right now. You might want to wind yours up again or something.
I watched The Watchmen. I thought it was pretty good, actually. The montage during the opening credits was brilliant.
All hot chicks are crazy, but not all crazy chicks are hot.
We've created an entire extrajudicial system to punish anyone who disagrees with the current regime, setup internment camps for political prisoners,
I think you've confused reality with 1984 or V for Vendetta. While I'm not a fan of everything US is doing, at least I don't make shit up to support my position.
I think I can safely say that the version on your phone and your satisfaction with it will never be news.