Look up some of Kevin Anderson's presentations. To keep below the carbon budget for 2C the industrialized world would have to decarbonize steeply. Not gonna happen. And that's without considering global dimming which is good for about 1C. IOW, 3C are in the pipeline even with an extreme effort.
So you're saying we're fucked, and we don't have the existential will to un-fuck ourselves?
Okay, but will this rise affect me in my lifetime, or can I safely ignore it and pass this problem off to the next generation like I plan on doing with the national debt?
Because people generally like living above water. Because there are existing places that will become untenable to maintain and/or unsafe with higher water levels and fixing that doesn't seem like a lot of fun.
There are are a whole lot more 'becauses' to add.
Because arable regions may shift faster than the plants can evolve to grow in them.
Because mass migration will cause significant upheaval and displacement of human society.
...and so on... and finally:
Because when the human race is confronted with a lack of something, it goes to war over it.
Half is Russian and half is mostly American. It should be possible to do what King Solomon refused to do, and split it in half.
The famous story of King Solomon didn't exactly play out like that.
Two women claimed to be the mother of a baby. Solomon called for the baby to be cut in half, and each half be given to each woman. One of the women screamed and pleaded with Solomon to give the baby to the other woman. Solomon then knew who the real mother was.
Threatening to split the ISS in half may very well result in exactly that happening. It has no single "mother" who would surrender it for the greater good.
For those who could use a reminder, here's a quick description of the Oxford comma debate, with a couple examples.
Nice post. Thanks for it.
But let's have a word about hyphens. Your post was about the Oxford-comma debate, not the Oxford comma-debate. Hyphens are helpful (and sometimes essential) to clarify compound nouns and adjectives. What's a "high school building?" Is it a building that's a high-school, or a school-building that's high?
Not so much as there should be a a hyphen in cotton picking.
Generally yes, cotton-picking should be hyphenated because it is a compound noun. It's especially important to hyphenate when it's used as an adjective. Otherwise what are we to make of a "cotton picking machine?" Is it a machine that picks cotton (a cotton-picking machine) or a machine that picks and is made out of cotton (a cotton picking-machine?)
Punctuation and grammar are important for communication clarity. Know your shit, not, know you're shit.
This.
Know the difference between a panda bear that "eats shoots and leaves" and a peckish hitman who "eats, shoots, and leaves."
"Let's eat, Grandma!" means that Grandma has come to dinner. "Let's eat Grandma!" means that Grandma is dinner.
Reforestation is important, not just to capture carbon but also to replace trees lost to logging, development, fires, disease, and pests.
The catch is that trees take a long time to grow. So they are only part of the solution to all of the above. Managing existing forests carefully has to be considered also.
You have a point. But I hardly think that an athlete will use a measuring device like this to define ultimate success. Rather, s/he will use it to see how to improve technique and win games.
Consider IQ tests. They don't really measure intelligence. They just measure how good you are at taking IQ tests. But there is a useful correlation between IQ tests and intelligence. Nevertheless, one must remember there is more than one kind of intelligence. Wayne Gretzky might score average on an IQ test, but put him on an ice rink with a hockey stick, and he's a genius.
Your link clearly shows that the article claims half of all life science research is flawed. You appear to be an example of the "truthiness" that Opportunist (the GP) laments.
Science is a human endeavor, and thus is subject to human error. But it embraces a philosophy of continual review and self-correction.
During the Bush era, I said that the only difference between liberal (or more like "progressive left") and conservative news people is that the latter don't try to hide the fact that they are assholes.
Really?
Which side purports to be "Fair and Balanced?"
Which side has the slogan "We report. You decide" that really means "We decide what to report. You believe you decided?"
Being biased is not being an asshole. Being biased and trying to claim you aren't? That's being an asshole.
It's no longer alarmism. It's basically cynical gallows humor. At least on my side.
I don't give a fuck anymore. I have about 30 years left. Maybe 40. More likely 20. The world will survive that long, and after that you can all go to hell with me as far as I'm concerned. I'm no longer trying to save your planet for people who don't give a fuck themselves.
Kindly have some consideration for the people who do give a fuck. There are more of them than you think. And they have existed for all of recorded history -- acting imperfectly and selfishly at times, but leaving a legacy that the next generation can use to help make things better.
I saw nothing in a quick skim of TFAs that indicated people would be obliged to participate. The economies of scale only kick in if Musk can get a critical mass of participants. Does the 50,000 figure include that qualifier?
Solar most definitely is a Good Thing (TM) but forcing it onto peoples' roofs? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any government owns a homeowner's roof yet.
A recent story talked about how Uber claims driverless trucks will increase (not decrease) employment of human truck-drivers to support short local routes, i.e., in urban areas.
I suppose banning all driverless vehicles except those of Uber and Lyft would be one way to do that.../sarcasm
Slashdot Mirror
Look up some of Kevin Anderson's presentations. To keep below the carbon budget for 2C the industrialized world would have to decarbonize steeply. Not gonna happen. And that's without considering global dimming which is good for about 1C. IOW, 3C are in the pipeline even with an extreme effort.
So you're saying we're fucked, and we don't have the existential will to un-fuck ourselves?
We deserve to go extinct.
My dear friend, your moniker should be PoeRatzo.
Well played.
Okay, but will this rise affect me in my lifetime, or can I safely ignore it and pass this problem off to the next generation like I plan on doing with the national debt?
Because people generally like living above water. Because there are existing places that will become untenable to maintain and/or unsafe with higher water levels and fixing that doesn't seem like a lot of fun.
There are are a whole lot more 'becauses' to add.
Because arable regions may shift faster than the plants can evolve to grow in them.
Because mass migration will cause significant upheaval and displacement of human society.
...and so on... and finally:
Because when the human race is confronted with a lack of something, it goes to war over it.
Half is Russian and half is mostly American. It should be possible to do what King Solomon refused to do, and split it in half.
The famous story of King Solomon didn't exactly play out like that.
Two women claimed to be the mother of a baby. Solomon called for the baby to be cut in half, and each half be given to each woman. One of the women screamed and pleaded with Solomon to give the baby to the other woman. Solomon then knew who the real mother was.
Threatening to split the ISS in half may very well result in exactly that happening. It has no single "mother" who would surrender it for the greater good.
For those who could use a reminder, here's a quick description of the Oxford comma debate, with a couple examples.
Nice post. Thanks for it.
But let's have a word about hyphens. Your post was about the Oxford-comma debate, not the Oxford comma-debate. Hyphens are helpful (and sometimes essential) to clarify compound nouns and adjectives. What's a "high school building?" Is it a building that's a high-school, or a school-building that's high?
Should there be a comma in picking cotton?
Not so much as there should be a a hyphen in cotton picking.
Generally yes, cotton-picking should be hyphenated because it is a compound noun. It's especially important to hyphenate when it's used as an adjective. Otherwise what are we to make of a "cotton picking machine?" Is it a machine that picks cotton (a cotton-picking machine) or a machine that picks and is made out of cotton (a cotton picking-machine?)
Punctuation and grammar are important for communication clarity. Know your shit, not, know you're shit.
This.
Know the difference between a panda bear that "eats shoots and leaves" and a peckish hitman who "eats, shoots, and leaves."
"Let's eat, Grandma!" means that Grandma has come to dinner.
"Let's eat Grandma!" means that Grandma is dinner.
And so on.
not bad, what's the ##
What's the ... catch?
Reforestation is important, not just to capture carbon but also to replace trees lost to logging, development, fires, disease, and pests.
The catch is that trees take a long time to grow. So they are only part of the solution to all of the above. Managing existing forests carefully has to be considered also.
Obama had no choice but to appoint Ajit Pai to the FCC. A Republican seat was open. The Republicans proposed Pai. Obama had to accept him.
If you want to blame anyone, blame Trump for elevating Pai to the chair.
You have a point. But I hardly think that an athlete will use a measuring device like this to define ultimate success. Rather, s/he will use it to see how to improve technique and win games.
Consider IQ tests. They don't really measure intelligence. They just measure how good you are at taking IQ tests. But there is a useful correlation between IQ tests and intelligence. Nevertheless, one must remember there is more than one kind of intelligence. Wayne Gretzky might score average on an IQ test, but put him on an ice rink with a hockey stick, and he's a genius.
I always turn to the sports pages first, which records people's accomplishments. The front page has nothing but man's failures.
-- Earl Warren
I confess it wasn't obvious (to me) but thanks for the clarification.
/thread
Whoosh.
[Oceania] has always been at war with eastasia
FTFY. Peace out.
FULL
OF
SHIT!
What exactly? The news stories? The FCC? Or your post?
Personally, I'm currently satisfied with my 950Mbps broadband. 100Mbps was starting to feel slow.
Dude, I'd like to see the porn you're watching.
So you're saying 25 Mbps ought to be enough for anyone?
Where have we heard that kind of thing before?
Big Brother has increased broadband speeds from 25 mbps to 10 mbps! Hooray Big Brother!
Your link clearly shows that the article claims half of all life science research is flawed. You appear to be an example of the "truthiness" that Opportunist (the GP) laments.
Science is a human endeavor, and thus is subject to human error. But it embraces a philosophy of continual review and self-correction.
During the Bush era, I said that the only difference between liberal (or more like "progressive left") and conservative news people is that the latter don't try to hide the fact that they are assholes.
Really?
Which side purports to be "Fair and Balanced?"
Which side has the slogan "We report. You decide" that really means "We decide what to report. You believe you decided?"
Being biased is not being an asshole. Being biased and trying to claim you aren't? That's being an asshole.
It's no longer alarmism. It's basically cynical gallows humor. At least on my side.
I don't give a fuck anymore. I have about 30 years left. Maybe 40. More likely 20. The world will survive that long, and after that you can all go to hell with me as far as I'm concerned. I'm no longer trying to save your planet for people who don't give a fuck themselves.
Kindly have some consideration for the people who do give a fuck. There are more of them than you think. And they have existed for all of recorded history -- acting imperfectly and selfishly at times, but leaving a legacy that the next generation can use to help make things better.
Yes, the government does own these roofs. These are council homes (low income housing).
If the government owns the roofs (and homes) then the dwellers are not homeowners, by definition. Per my OP:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any government owns a homeowner's roof yet.
That being said, I understand the benefit of encouraging roof colours that are appropriate for the latitudes of the homes.
I saw nothing in a quick skim of TFAs that indicated people would be obliged to participate. The economies of scale only kick in if Musk can get a critical mass of participants. Does the 50,000 figure include that qualifier?
Solar most definitely is a Good Thing (TM) but forcing it onto peoples' roofs? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any government owns a homeowner's roof yet.
A recent story talked about how Uber claims driverless trucks will increase (not decrease) employment of human truck-drivers to support short local routes, i.e., in urban areas.
I suppose banning all driverless vehicles except those of Uber and Lyft would be one way to do that... /sarcasm
Perhaps Nunes thinks he is serving the interests of the American people and out freedoms.
Who knows? Perhaps he may actually think that. But if he did, then he would support a co-release of the Schiff rebuttal memo.
IMHO, the interests he is truly serving are his own, and those of his Orange boss.