Seriously, look up Haber Bosch as well as inorganic fertilizers. They are made by consuming huge amounts of fossil fuels.
So you're saying this is the *only* way. I disagree.
Rather I will argue that a symbiotic environment that includes nitrogen fixing microbes may suffice for nitrogen requirements.
Going a step further, assuming production of the ferts requires ENERGY (not necessarily that of fossil fuels), we could source the energy from renewable resources such as wind, hydro, solar.... And ideally we would just use the elecriticty produced, but since we may also need oil-fuels for a stretch into the future, we could use clean energy to run the chemistry.
Don't limit your view as to what we have; matter of fact, don't limit your view. Imagine what is possible with the current technologies and sciences we already have. Slashdot is great, but physorg is much more powerful at keeping you up to date on what we are capable of. Hell, anyone with an eye in the pubs knows that solar has been viable for 15 years now and is *still* contested only by perpetuation of false memes.
I like the Algae-lipid process, but I really like the biocatalyst process better. Two years ago several scientists developed a number of specific catalysts that convert CO2 back into 3-carbon chain pieces. This is a major development in utilizing biological (protein) tools for harnessing energy. And before you ask how they get their energy, note that any temperature above 0 Kelvin is an energetic system. If I recall, the proteins operate just above standard temp (about 25 deg C).
We are (and have been) ready for renewable energy in the science-area for quite a while now. It's just a matter of getting people to listen and understand --- and to also speak louder than the popular false memetics that old-tech businesses spread to maintain their investment.
I can see that you're far to stubborn and far too egotistical to accept reality. I will accept that even you cannot see yourself in a position to accept things you cannot change... and thus I will accept that you probably won't change.
Good luck with your stressful and annoyed life. You might avoid a few hemorrhoids if you bothered to listen to someone instead of think you're always right and spew silly snide comments akin to those ridiculous 'no fear' shirts.
I like your breakdown of the categories. Right on.
I agree --- no cause for alarm here.
Cultures are changing. This is how life goes, especially in these rapidly changing times.
Really, the only major downfall of much of this is the fact that you're generally sedentary during computer/media use. But if kids were to ensure good workout schedules as well they could negate that concern.
If they aren't punished, then they are above the law.
Justice continues to escape US Citizens. Current leadership and administrations said they would care, but ultimately have shown complacency and tolerance for injustice. When are we to believe them to be any different? Actions speak louder than words, and the last year of inaction speaks loud and clear as to who we're really dealing with.
Look, if the FBI didn't have a good reason, I'm sure they wouldn't have done that. Let's stop trying to hinder their investigations and let them get their jobs done.
Sometimes a good investigator doesn't really need a reason. This is what hunches are all about. Some of the best investigators come from Notre Dame -- and why not? The place is so ridden with valuable hunch-making environments that a man developed a full out hunchback!
I've got a *feeling* that said hunchback ought lead our best forces. FBI or CIA head? Why not!
I'm gonna go with my gut and say I think I ate something sarcastic for lunch and it's not sitting well... eeeggh... brrrff...
... to get used to it. Mostly because it isn't going away, you will encounter it many times, and a better perception of it will better your life as it encounters these blips.
The serenity prayer isn't just for the religious or substance abusers. It is actually pretty awesome. You don't have to know it or say it; just know the basic idea of it 'accept what I can't change'.
It isn't an attitude, it is a reality. But so you know, all of the raw data is usually available in science --- the problem is that the layman has no idea what they are looking at. This is why reviewers must dumb it down; they must interpret it FOR you because you lack the relevant knowledge to interpret it yourself.
We can go back and forth about 'transparency' all day. Science is VERY transparent. No, you and the infant in your arms can't touch the equipment. But that doesn't mean you can't earn the right to do so; and that doesn't mean it isn't transparent. But since people want to trivialize the topic and pretend they don't understand, or act like O.J. putting on a leather glove... well... I'm sorry you're incapable of understanding and incapable of acquiring the education to do so or be a part of the science.
Pretty much every review article I have read regarding AGW is written in a way that a person with a high school education could understand it. Thats what review articles are for. Now when it comes to the technical pubs, well then you usually have to be a part of the field to understand them. Even if you understand the language, you probably won't understand the context, significance, relevance, etc. And it is reasonably improbable, without a person interpreting it for the layman (in a review), for it to be done otherwise.
To publish heavy science in laymans terms would mean they would be written with TONS of background info and would require way more words to write because scientific words are not known by the layman and would require wordy definitions each time. The end result would be that each article would be more of a full on teaching, and in the end, the target audience (the related peers developing the science) gets their time wasted.
This is what review articles are for. They sum up the technical articles and put up pretty pictures and diagrams to make it easier to take.
Even just a couple years ago I would not understand more than a couple words about the stuff I read daily and am involved in with my own research. But if I picked up a high school text book on the topic, they could sum up the gist of it in a way that I would assume nearly any adult should clearly understand.
To be a little clearer about this. If you want to understand it, but not be specifically educated prior to getting the info, then the info will need to be written at the level to which you are educated to receive it. If you want to know MORE information, the deeper/heavier science of it, then you'll have to cross the gap of education on your own effort... and then it won't look like Chinese anymore. --------
By the way. I apologize for being so angsty about this. I really am sick of the opinionated layman on this topic; especially when I understand everything I've read, and yet the layman keeps acting like they are O.J. putting on that leather glove (where completion of the act would be the understanding of the science... figurative language).
I only apologize to you because it looks like you're not asserting some ignorant opinion as any qualified point against real scientists, but that you are open to understanding.
I know I'm not credible on this topic. And I'm sure you know what all the credible people are in agreement on. So I defer to the credible if you want some 'facts', lol.
I've read loads of articles about AGW and they clearly explain it. You can take your doubt as far as the semantics of the words in the language if you want and trivialize little things and keep acting like you don't get it; but it has been pretty well spelled out for me.
Science is transparent. People are kicking up dust and pretending they didn't see anything and trivializing otherwise meaningless tidbits of nothing.
I'm sick of unqualified people being given room to speak.
From now on, especially on this topic, I'm going to simply ask a person to show how they are credible/qualified in the topic/field so that I can trust anything they say. Otherwise its just more opinionated laymen hanging out in peanut galleries.
You can hate me for not trusting any of you skeptics, but until someone worth listening to will step up and speak, I'm just gonna keep shouting you down for your lack of credibility.
I know when I don't know something, and when its best I take it from people who are qualified. Pretty much all of the qualified people (and articles i've read) are in agreement on this.
Quit wasting your time trying to convince me of anything unless you're ready to show me why I should believe you.
It IS well scientifically founded. The only skeptics to those FACTS (which takes me from opinion to 'well founded) are OPINIONATED LAYMEN like yourself.
I am not a climate scientist. I am a biologist. And what I know is that neither you nor I are even qualified to have this discussion in any sense of reality that is going on. Didn't you ever learn not to talk unless you know what you are talking about?
I've challenged many skeptics to go study climatology. The usual response is "I don't need to." Well, to convince ME of anything you need to. I only trust the facts and opinions and theories of QUALIFIED PEOPLE.
YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED. Show me how you are qualified and I might care. Chances are, you aren't. Chances are the people who fed you the junk reasons for your skepticism aren't either.
Don't bother writing back unless you want to show me a list of the scientific publications on the topic that you've personally contributed to.
Wow. You cannot have possibly read the message you replied to!
It is clear to me that he used logic and evidence to make his point.
And then you basically just spout more 'I don't belive it'...
I'll do you the same:
It doesn't matter how or why or what you say. You are wrong.
It doesn't matter if what you said makes any sense, Its fraudulent! I SAID SO!
The whole tone of your post twists plain facts means that you cannot be taken seriously. --------
Now what?
If you knew anything you were talking about you wouldn't say stupid shit like "it doesn't matter". Guess what, the educated people say it DOES and you are NOT qualified in any way to be trusted when you say it doesn't.
I'm sick of hearing the opinionated layman spew his dogshit opinion about something far too complex for he/she to even understand, let alone have a valid theory about.
They don't have to put it on the iPhone. They are talking about FUTURE phones, not YOUR phone.
We don't all own an iphone. Matter of fact, my HTC Touch Pro is way better than an iPhone. If we were hanging out together in person we could compare and I could show you why.
There are other phones out there, you know. I really hope the concept of the mobile pc doesn't go the way of the Kleenex --- where everyone calls a face tissue a kleenex --- where everyone calls a mobile pc phone an iphone.... eeeewww.
The issue I take with that approach is that there seems there should be a point when a person or group of people should drop their self-interest and think about everyone, or in the AGW case, everything else.
You're making the unwarranted assumption that doing something to prevent AGW is more beneficial to everyone and everything than not doing so. That has not been established.
The dangerous outcomes of AGW are well scientifically founded. The results are far more reaching and serious than a state missing some revenue from sourcing its fossil fuels.
Let me guess... you don't believe those facts... That's your own doing. I bet you don't doubt anything else from scientific research that has made your life MORE convenient.
There is a big difference between Truth(whats happening) and what you want. I have this talk with my daughter all the time. Sometimes it isn't how you want it. That's life.
I have an alternative question.... how serious is the threat of terrorism?
The chances of you dying from heart disease is way higher. The chances of you dying from eating a peanut is higher.
But, I can throw around numbers and give ignorant analysis too.
AGW will produce a 4 degree net increase (no source cited) --- but will yield a 15 degree local increase in the middle east. This will drive the terrists from their homes and they will have no choice but to end up on the freedomland. God bless it. And then since they will be here, the terrism goes up 100 fold! OH NOES!
Also, the warm temperatures inspire Obama to relax enough to let it slip that he's a muslim... and then, not only that, but that he's a terrist! Then the hussein obama nukes us all! OH NOES!
As a resident of Wyoming, Barrasso's stance doesn't surprise me one bit. Wyoming is heavily dependent on it's energy resources industry. Coal, natural gas, oil. We've got enough oil locked in the green river shale oil deposit to meet the nation's appetite for the next 194 years (at current usage), but getting to it is going to take a lot of time and research, and if public opinion shifts too far away from oil then no one will invest enough to make it a reality.
The issue I take with that approach is that there seems there should be a point when a person or group of people should drop their self-interest and think about everyone, or in the AGW case, everything else.
Before someone tries to troll me, i've already showered. I'd rather be a hippie than an irrational layman.
Once there has been established a perfect unbreakable encryption, they will then have to work on establishing perfect and unbreakable people that deal with the information; and that's much harder to do.
I think it is a smart move to keep putting up walls of security with encryption; people should try to maintain their secrecy for whatever purpose that is... But history shows that the encryption will most likely be broken. And given the day that the encryption cannot be broke, more focus will be applied to the human intelligence collection effort and the fallible characteristics of humans will then be the Achilles's heel (not that this approach isn't already well underway).
I just saw it last weekend, and I gotta say.. Science Fiction? Not much. Science Fantasy is more like it.
Just a few things threw me off. I loved most of the movie. And for a while I believed the blue people were spiritual in the same way humans were.. in ritual and what not...
But instead it turned out to be a magical spiritual world, and a collective thought borg of trees and animals.. and those that.. died?
A fantastic adventure, but really just lost me as a caring viewer. I prefer things to be more rational.
As a life sciences student, I saw the movie in a different way. I felt the world they lived in was actually representative/metaphor of our own complex symbiotic ecosystems and natural origins, but that they had to present a more simplified and entertaining approach so that the layman could understand it easily.
I felt the movie was basically a demonstration of the conflict between the people's drive for peaceful unity and the pressures of an interest that places the value of resource over the value of life. The point being that the resource was not essential to maintain life, but life would be taken to acquire it for its economic value.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, look up Haber Bosch as well as inorganic fertilizers. They are made by consuming huge amounts of fossil fuels.
So you're saying this is the *only* way. I disagree.
Rather I will argue that a symbiotic environment that includes nitrogen fixing microbes may suffice for nitrogen requirements.
Going a step further, assuming production of the ferts requires ENERGY (not necessarily that of fossil fuels), we could source the energy from renewable resources such as wind, hydro, solar.... And ideally we would just use the elecriticty produced, but since we may also need oil-fuels for a stretch into the future, we could use clean energy to run the chemistry.
Don't limit your view as to what we have; matter of fact, don't limit your view. Imagine what is possible with the current technologies and sciences we already have. Slashdot is great, but physorg is much more powerful at keeping you up to date on what we are capable of. Hell, anyone with an eye in the pubs knows that solar has been viable for 15 years now and is *still* contested only by perpetuation of false memes.
I like the Algae-lipid process, but I really like the biocatalyst process better. Two years ago several scientists developed a number of specific catalysts that convert CO2 back into 3-carbon chain pieces. This is a major development in utilizing biological (protein) tools for harnessing energy. And before you ask how they get their energy, note that any temperature above 0 Kelvin is an energetic system. If I recall, the proteins operate just above standard temp (about 25 deg C).
We are (and have been) ready for renewable energy in the science-area for quite a while now. It's just a matter of getting people to listen and understand --- and to also speak louder than the popular false memetics that old-tech businesses spread to maintain their investment.
... do NOT come from petroleum.
I give up
I can see that you're far to stubborn and far too egotistical to accept reality. I will accept that even you cannot see yourself in a position to accept things you cannot change... and thus I will accept that you probably won't change.
Good luck with your stressful and annoyed life. You might avoid a few hemorrhoids if you bothered to listen to someone instead of think you're always right and spew silly snide comments akin to those ridiculous 'no fear' shirts.
Laters.
I like your breakdown of the categories. Right on.
I agree --- no cause for alarm here.
Cultures are changing. This is how life goes, especially in these rapidly changing times.
Really, the only major downfall of much of this is the fact that you're generally sedentary during computer/media use. But if kids were to ensure good workout schedules as well they could negate that concern.
If they aren't punished, then they are above the law.
Justice continues to escape US Citizens. Current leadership and administrations said they would care, but ultimately have shown complacency and tolerance for injustice. When are we to believe them to be any different? Actions speak louder than words, and the last year of inaction speaks loud and clear as to who we're really dealing with.
Look, if the FBI didn't have a good reason, I'm sure they wouldn't have done that. Let's stop trying to hinder their investigations and let them get their jobs done.
Sometimes a good investigator doesn't really need a reason. This is what hunches are all about. Some of the best investigators come from Notre Dame -- and why not? The place is so ridden with valuable hunch-making environments that a man developed a full out hunchback!
I've got a *feeling* that said hunchback ought lead our best forces. FBI or CIA head? Why not!
I'm gonna go with my gut and say I think I ate something sarcastic for lunch and it's not sitting well... eeeggh... brrrff...
... to get used to it. Mostly because it isn't going away, you will encounter it many times, and a better perception of it will better your life as it encounters these blips.
The serenity prayer isn't just for the religious or substance abusers. It is actually pretty awesome. You don't have to know it or say it; just know the basic idea of it 'accept what I can't change'.
There are also those of us who complain about things and AREN'T playing it in full force.
Matter of fact, my HTC Touch Pro is way better than an iPhone. If we were hanging out together in person we could compare and I could show you why.
No, actually, your phone runs Windows Mobile.
Your phone is trash.
Actually it runs a modded WM, and it runs awesome. But, you wouldn't know because your prejudice keeps you from the actual experience.
It isn't an attitude, it is a reality. But so you know, all of the raw data is usually available in science --- the problem is that the layman has no idea what they are looking at. This is why reviewers must dumb it down; they must interpret it FOR you because you lack the relevant knowledge to interpret it yourself.
We can go back and forth about 'transparency' all day. Science is VERY transparent. No, you and the infant in your arms can't touch the equipment. But that doesn't mean you can't earn the right to do so; and that doesn't mean it isn't transparent. But since people want to trivialize the topic and pretend they don't understand, or act like O.J. putting on a leather glove... well... I'm sorry you're incapable of understanding and incapable of acquiring the education to do so or be a part of the science.
Pretty much every review article I have read regarding AGW is written in a way that a person with a high school education could understand it. Thats what review articles are for. Now when it comes to the technical pubs, well then you usually have to be a part of the field to understand them. Even if you understand the language, you probably won't understand the context, significance, relevance, etc. And it is reasonably improbable, without a person interpreting it for the layman (in a review), for it to be done otherwise.
To publish heavy science in laymans terms would mean they would be written with TONS of background info and would require way more words to write because scientific words are not known by the layman and would require wordy definitions each time. The end result would be that each article would be more of a full on teaching, and in the end, the target audience (the related peers developing the science) gets their time wasted.
This is what review articles are for. They sum up the technical articles and put up pretty pictures and diagrams to make it easier to take.
Even just a couple years ago I would not understand more than a couple words about the stuff I read daily and am involved in with my own research. But if I picked up a high school text book on the topic, they could sum up the gist of it in a way that I would assume nearly any adult should clearly understand.
To be a little clearer about this. If you want to understand it, but not be specifically educated prior to getting the info, then the info will need to be written at the level to which you are educated to receive it. If you want to know MORE information, the deeper/heavier science of it, then you'll have to cross the gap of education on your own effort... and then it won't look like Chinese anymore.
--------
By the way. I apologize for being so angsty about this. I really am sick of the opinionated layman on this topic; especially when I understand everything I've read, and yet the layman keeps acting like they are O.J. putting on that leather glove (where completion of the act would be the understanding of the science... figurative language).
I only apologize to you because it looks like you're not asserting some ignorant opinion as any qualified point against real scientists, but that you are open to understanding.
I opened this... I got to the part where you said "I'm a mathematician and a programmer... experience with economics".
You should have started with something to show you are credible. Nope, I don't think you are. Not reading the rest.
Write more, but I hope you start with credibility else it's just a waste like this one.
Bye. I'm sick of you guys masquerading as legit.
I know I'm not credible on this topic. And I'm sure you know what all the credible people are in agreement on. So I defer to the credible if you want some 'facts', lol.
I've read loads of articles about AGW and they clearly explain it. You can take your doubt as far as the semantics of the words in the language if you want and trivialize little things and keep acting like you don't get it; but it has been pretty well spelled out for me.
Science is transparent. People are kicking up dust and pretending they didn't see anything and trivializing otherwise meaningless tidbits of nothing.
I'm sick of unqualified people being given room to speak.
From now on, especially on this topic, I'm going to simply ask a person to show how they are credible/qualified in the topic/field so that I can trust anything they say. Otherwise its just more opinionated laymen hanging out in peanut galleries.
You can hate me for not trusting any of you skeptics, but until someone worth listening to will step up and speak, I'm just gonna keep shouting you down for your lack of credibility.
I know when I don't know something, and when its best I take it from people who are qualified. Pretty much all of the qualified people (and articles i've read) are in agreement on this.
Quit wasting your time trying to convince me of anything unless you're ready to show me why I should believe you.
You are not qualified. I am not qualified.
I'm not even reading your junk because it is unqualified blather from an opinionated layman.
Type more, I won't read it.
I told you not to reply without proving you are worth listening to.
It IS well scientifically founded. The only skeptics to those FACTS (which takes me from opinion to 'well founded) are OPINIONATED LAYMEN like yourself.
I am not a climate scientist. I am a biologist. And what I know is that neither you nor I are even qualified to have this discussion in any sense of reality that is going on. Didn't you ever learn not to talk unless you know what you are talking about?
I've challenged many skeptics to go study climatology. The usual response is "I don't need to." Well, to convince ME of anything you need to. I only trust the facts and opinions and theories of QUALIFIED PEOPLE.
YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED. Show me how you are qualified and I might care. Chances are, you aren't. Chances are the people who fed you the junk reasons for your skepticism aren't either.
Don't bother writing back unless you want to show me a list of the scientific publications on the topic that you've personally contributed to.
You don't even have the skills to criticize.
GTFO.
Didn't you ever learn not to talk unless you know what you're talking about?
Ding! Add another opinionated layman to the roster, Bob! I've found another!
Wow. You cannot have possibly read the message you replied to!
It is clear to me that he used logic and evidence to make his point.
And then you basically just spout more 'I don't belive it'...
I'll do you the same:
It doesn't matter how or why or what you say. You are wrong.
It doesn't matter if what you said makes any sense, Its fraudulent! I SAID SO!
The whole tone of your post twists plain facts means that you cannot be taken seriously.
--------
Now what?
If you knew anything you were talking about you wouldn't say stupid shit like "it doesn't matter". Guess what, the educated people say it DOES and you are NOT qualified in any way to be trusted when you say it doesn't.
I'm sick of hearing the opinionated layman spew his dogshit opinion about something far too complex for he/she to even understand, let alone have a valid theory about.
They don't have to put it on the iPhone. They are talking about FUTURE phones, not YOUR phone.
We don't all own an iphone. Matter of fact, my HTC Touch Pro is way better than an iPhone. If we were hanging out together in person we could compare and I could show you why.
There are other phones out there, you know. I really hope the concept of the mobile pc doesn't go the way of the Kleenex --- where everyone calls a face tissue a kleenex --- where everyone calls a mobile pc phone an iphone.... eeeewww.
The issue I take with that approach is that there seems there should be a point when a person or group of people should drop their self-interest and think about everyone, or in the AGW case, everything else.
You're making the unwarranted assumption that doing something to prevent AGW is more beneficial to everyone and everything than not doing so. That has not been established.
The dangerous outcomes of AGW are well scientifically founded. The results are far more reaching and serious than a state missing some revenue from sourcing its fossil fuels.
Let me guess... you don't believe those facts... That's your own doing. I bet you don't doubt anything else from scientific research that has made your life MORE convenient.
There is a big difference between Truth(whats happening) and what you want. I have this talk with my daughter all the time. Sometimes it isn't how you want it. That's life.
I have an alternative question.... how serious is the threat of terrorism?
The chances of you dying from heart disease is way higher. The chances of you dying from eating a peanut is higher.
But, I can throw around numbers and give ignorant analysis too.
AGW will produce a 4 degree net increase (no source cited) --- but will yield a 15 degree local increase in the middle east. This will drive the terrists from their homes and they will have no choice but to end up on the freedomland. God bless it. And then since they will be here, the terrism goes up 100 fold! OH NOES!
Also, the warm temperatures inspire Obama to relax enough to let it slip that he's a muslim... and then, not only that, but that he's a terrist! Then the hussein obama nukes us all!
OH NOES!
Go eat some peanuts.
As a resident of Wyoming, Barrasso's stance doesn't surprise me one bit.
Wyoming is heavily dependent on it's energy resources industry. Coal, natural gas, oil. We've got enough oil locked in the green river shale oil deposit to meet the nation's appetite for the next 194 years (at current usage), but getting to it is going to take a lot of time and research, and if public opinion shifts too far away from oil then no one will invest enough to make it a reality.
The issue I take with that approach is that there seems there should be a point when a person or group of people should drop their self-interest and think about everyone, or in the AGW case, everything else.
Before someone tries to troll me, i've already showered. I'd rather be a hippie than an irrational layman.
You know whats nuts? About 40% of my peers (from which 75% are disinterested) I was talking about *are* grad students!
Once there has been established a perfect unbreakable encryption, they will then have to work on establishing perfect and unbreakable people that deal with the information; and that's much harder to do.
I think it is a smart move to keep putting up walls of security with encryption; people should try to maintain their secrecy for whatever purpose that is... But history shows that the encryption will most likely be broken. And given the day that the encryption cannot be broke, more focus will be applied to the human intelligence collection effort and the fallible characteristics of humans will then be the Achilles's heel (not that this approach isn't already well underway).
I just saw it last weekend, and I gotta say.. Science Fiction? Not much. Science Fantasy is more like it.
Just a few things threw me off. I loved most of the movie. And for a while I believed the blue people were spiritual in the same way humans were.. in ritual and what not...
But instead it turned out to be a magical spiritual world, and a collective thought borg of trees and animals.. and those that .. died?
A fantastic adventure, but really just lost me as a caring viewer. I prefer things to be more rational.
As a life sciences student, I saw the movie in a different way. I felt the world they lived in was actually representative/metaphor of our own complex symbiotic ecosystems and natural origins, but that they had to present a more simplified and entertaining approach so that the layman could understand it easily.
I felt the movie was basically a demonstration of the conflict between the people's drive for peaceful unity and the pressures of an interest that places the value of resource over the value of life. The point being that the resource was not essential to maintain life, but life would be taken to acquire it for its economic value.