I consider myself "Green" and pro-nuclear. Just a reminder that we exist. (granted, I do recognize it has a number of problems, the biggest involving waste & politics)
I'm not sure processed means finished. As parent post mentions, 64 layers of flash storage could mean hundreds of layers of material. Each layer requires multiple steps, and most steps require both time and temperature.
Imagine trying to bake a layer of cake with a required precision of 1/100th inch of bread rise. If you kill the power before it's done, the cake is too flat or too puffy. They actually call them recipe's in the fab, and it's what all the work of manufacturing is - adjusting recipe's for maximum yield (how many devices on the wafer end up actually working). So if a wafer has gone through 24 layers of work, significant (expensive) machine time has been invested already, and it's "processed", as opposed to a "bare" wafer with 0 layers of work.
Note that some steps in the process are salvageable: if the very top layer messed up, they can "clean" the wafer to erase the mistake and simply back up a few steps. But if the whole fab goes down, I'd guess there's enough backlog in cleaning that you might effectively say 95% is lost for the short term.
Your favorite (I tried RTM & liked it 'ok') and mine don't have self-hosted options, I believe. But I still feel the need to share b/c it seemed like such a simple problem to solve and frustrated me until I found SplenDO on Android. I was also a little surprised by what turned out to be most important for me in a task tracker: 1. web interface. SplenDO allows you to use google calendar tasks. It doesn't matter that it feels clunky at first because what's important is I'm already always logged in, so it's fast and easy. 1. (tied for 1st) ease/speed to jot something down when in a hurry. SplenDO does this by a quick-link in the main Android drag-down bar. I didn't realize how much this helped until I used it for a while. 2. prioritize your list by due-date. again, not how I thought I wanted it to work at first, and it seems impossible to prioritize any other way actually. but the fact that it helps you in both the app and google calendar ends up working really well.
So tl;dr Spendo seems like it sucks, yet it's the only task tracker I've ever used (probably tried >10 or so) that has solved this problem so well that I've used it long term.
Agreed, and in response to parent, I read his article, and was actually starting to change my long term belief because it was mostly credible. Then I got to this (search for 'and concluded'):
Did Australia and Great Britain’s reforms prevent mass shootings? It’s hard to say, simply because mass shootings are relatively rare. In the post-buyback period, Great Britain has had one massacre with guns while Australia has had none. It’s hard to calculate how many would have been expected without a ban. Australia looks more successful in this regard, because it had more frequent mass shootings before the ban (averaging about two mass shootings every three years from 1979 to 1996.3)
So one of the article's most important argument legs is that you can't statistically prove Australia's buyback program had any impact. But:
before the buyback, mass shootings: 2 out of every 3 years
after the buyback, mass shootings: 0 in 20 years
You can't draw a statistical conclusion from that? Cmon, man.
You act like banning guns would stop gun violence. We can't even stop millions of people and drugs from flowing over the border into our country, what makes you think we can stop guns from being brought over?
You act like the countries south of us are making all the guns. The truth is Mexico has strict gun laws, they get most of them from us. Now, I'm not sure it would work, but you have to admit it worked for Australia and the UK. The trick is they were surrounded by water. We would have to convince all our neighbors. But Mexico and Canada are already on board. We're the crazy one causing problems for them. If we legalized drugs and controlled guns, the Cartels would lose their income and die. I saw a powerful statistic that ~95% of guns used in murder were stolen from law-abiding citizens. And it's mostly America manufacturing these guns. Makes you think.
Now, I'm not really for banning all guns, I just think people arguing that doing so wouldn't save a lot of lives are not being honest. There are just other arguments. Guns are fun, yes definitely. Guns are used for hunting, yup (granted don't necessarily need handguns or assault weapons). Guns can be used in that insanely rare instance of a modern violent revolution that ends up being for the better, um mayybeee. But, guns don't kill people, can't be regulated, don't escalate violence? Are you kidding, they were invented for killing and oppression, and all other developed countries have proven they can be regulated.
There are plenty of people who seem to have a visceral reaction against anyone without a job or existing material wealth receiving even the most basic goods or services
I agree it's the transition period that ruins it, but my conclusion is different. Afaict, communism sounds great until human instinct kicks in. My view of history (biased I'm sure, coming from the US) is that countries that go down that path always find corruption from people in charge, introducing inefficiencies that capitalism doesn't have (as much). This explains, in the most simplistic way, why the US ended up with more wealth than Russia. Ie, the most effective laws allow for human instinct, like trying to get ahead. People always compare themselves and feel good or bad based of the comparison, more than the reality. This also explains why "poor" people of today still feel like they're living in dystopia, despite being "rich" compared to the "poor" of yesterday. By it's extension, it predicts no matter how much AI/robots we develop, we'll always be competitive enough to have full work days and a regular ebb & flow of employment rate.
But I digress, and invite anyone that wants to defend/promote Communism/Socialism to give me the best short and long reads - internet or books.
Lol, in my imagination, at least one Russian troll factory worker will take off the troll hat and post something respectful here.:P
I forgot to mention regularly support and donate to bipartisan causes trying to reduce money in politics (example). If I found a cause that tried to get rid of Gerrymandering, I'd support that too. I haven't found a sexy quick fix for these two problems, but if it were easy it would have been done already.
What legal, practical, reasonable, and achievable action could an individual voter have taken in order to cause a highly desirable additional candidate to emerge?
I think I agree with you - there is no answer here, we're stuck with 2 parties for now. What should we do? I always say the same thing - vote for the better of the 2. Slowly but surely, you'll push both parties in the right direction. Sorry, but there is no magic wand. Politics has always been messy, will always be messy. People keep acting like we've never seen such craziness before, but politicians used to fight with duels - guns instead of words. And the words were just as harsh back then too.
I always vote for the best position in the primary, then the best position in the general (usually these are different answers). Try to research individual local candidates. Just do the best research you can. But smart people should not give up. Too many are voting for the guy they'd like to have a beer with or entertains their fantasies with soundbites. Don't leave the decision up to them.
It's obvious the jetski is by far more useful. But if it's a speed test, this doesn't seem fair. 1) They made the drone operator run from the watch tower 100ft to waterline. 2) The jetski was sitting there 8ft from water, 3) with a 4-wheeler 4) and a driver waiting to help him launch.
Google should downlist American media too, because they also "inject themselves into US politics". In fact, even some private citizens have been caught expressing opinions on politics, and attempting to sway the votes of their friends and neighbors. Google needs to put a stop to that. We can't just have people going around saying whatever they want. Thank God that we have the corporate elite to protect us and tell us what to think.
furthermore. methane is unstable and oxidizes itself in the atmosphere (apart from being processed by certain bacteria) fo much less "greengouse-toxic" gases, if i remember correctly halflife expectation is below 10 years. So it is continuously is removed from atmosphere (unlike CO2 accumulation) and CO2 seems by far much bigger problem
Not saying you're wrong, but another way of looking at the same data is that this is a low-hanging fruit we can make a difference in immediately. If this is an issue of just cutting down on beef, I'd say there's more upside than consequences. I reduced my beef intake by around 90%. I've benefitted by slightly better health and a slightly fatter wallet, which is usually the end of a decision if we're being honest. I'm not saying I don't absolutely love eating beef, but chicken and fish taste good too, and I slowly eat a little more legumes every year. It's fun to try new stuff, and it hasn't affected my weight-lifting. The only negative affect I've had is I get judged by people living in the movie Idiocracy (yes, I live in Texas).
We should tackle the worst offenders first. A global shift to zero emission transportation would be a game changer.
Except, of course, that transportation isn't "the worst offender"; globally it's about 14% of total GHG emissions, and only a fraction of that can reasonably be switched to "zero emission". The "worst offenders" are industry, heating, electricity, and agriculture.
True, (but or and,) guess what contributes to that agriculture section? Cattle have to eat, and they eat a lot, compared to to all our other protein sources. They contribute double all the other animals combined. http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/... So, besides just the farts (aka eructation), here's some sources of greenhouse gasses produced through the creation of food used to feed livestock:
Feed production: Direct and indirect N2O from:
Application of synthetic N
Application of manure
Direct deposition of manure by grazing and scavenging animals
Crop residue management
Non-feed production:
Energy use in field operations
Energy use in feed transport and processing
Fertilizer manufacture
Feed blending
Production of non-crop feedstuff (fishmeal, lime and synthetic amino acids)
CH4 from flooded rice cultivation
Land-use change related to soybean cultivation
This doesn't make sense to me either. Under WTO rules, retaliation is permitted against dumping and subsidies. But there is no retaliation permitted just for low prices.
Uh yeah, where do you think those low prices come from? The Chinese government provides subsidies to disruptive industries...
I initially disliked the tariffs, fearing trade war and escalation of prices - I'd rather us start investing as much as China and beat them at their own low-price game. But after reading the WTO Anti-dumping and subsidy rules, I think this isn't supposed to start a trade war - it's the legal and appropriate reaction to China subsidies (and dumping I guess). I'd still like to increase US government investments in research and subsidies anyway.
My suspicion is they're benign and that this is a well-known phenomena, or rare, but it upsets people concerned about the idea of "un-natural" or "synthetic" things making their way in their food source.
Actually it seems this has been an area of study for a few years now:
http://system.suny.edu/system-... Microplastics affect different aspects of the environment. They can affect fish, birds and other wildlife who may ingest the plastics, causing internal blockage, dehydration and death in these species.
Microplastics can also transport other pollutants. They absorb pollutants already in the water, such as DDT, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). When ingested by wildlife or humans (either directly or indirectly), these plastics contain high concentrations of these dangerous toxins which can become even more concentrated and dangerous as they bioaccumulate in the food chain.
I guess microplastic fibers are different than microplastic beads, and maybe definitive, specific studies haven't been published yet. But, logic would say they probably have the same ill effects. I do agree I'd wait for the studies before passing laws. But nothing wrong with have a product ready to solve the problem.
Serious question.. How? What about small plastic fibers is a problem as they go though my digestive tract?
http://system.suny.edu/system-... Microplastics affect different aspects of the environment. They can affect fish, birds and other wildlife who may ingest the plastics, causing internal blockage, dehydration and death in these species.
Microplastics can also transport other pollutants. They absorb pollutants already in the water, such as DDT, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). When ingested by wildlife or humans (either directly or indirectly), these plastics contain high concentrations of these dangerous toxins which can become even more concentrated and dangerous as they bioaccumulate in the food chain.
http://digitalcommons.salve.ed... Some consequences of micro plastic ingestion that have been found in fish include reduced reproductive ability, decreased feeding ability, abnormal behavior and death.25
it is still collusion with a foreign power and treason to a high degree.
Are we at war with Russia? Or are they our ally? How is diplomacy with a foreign state we are not at war with treasonous?
This is beyond diplomacy, you do not have to be at war with a country. A federal law, Section 30121 of Title 52, makes it a crime for any foreigner to contribute or donate money or some “other thing of value” in connection with an American election, or for anyone to solicit a foreigner to do so. Previous court cases concerning similar related laws have held, that a “thing of value” can be something intangible, like information.
For whatever reason, Microsoft was just never able to get mobile right.
Totally agree - I'm floored by all the comments claiming MS was late. But I believe what they missed was apps. I agree with the other fond memories of WM mentioned. I remember, despite seriously hating MS, I thought in 2006, "Wow, they got this WM 5.x pretty right, this is the wave of the future. It's just a pain to install software. They need something like apt-get." How many years did MS sit on it's butt before Apple came out with a technically inferior phone, with the exception of the app store?
With extinction looming on the horizon if we do nothing
What's the mechanism? How does one go from modest sea level rises over long periods of time to extinction? No one has presented any threat related to AGW that is significant enough to cause human extinction. Instead it's all idle hysteria.
Extinction may be overreach. But if you think about it, climate change means more rain and hurricanes in some places (and we get an idea of how much record-breaking hurricanes are costing us already), and maybe more importantly drought in others. We actually do have an example of what happens when drought affects crops in a region - war:
So the Mayans, numbering over a million in the Yucatan in 800AD, fell to less than 200k, just 100 years later (numbers coming from memory of a Jared Diamon book - correct me pls). It was almost a 90% drop in population due to war, famine, and all the other social effects that more and more evidence indicates were initially due to climate change.
And of course, the Mayans hadn't invented nuclear or even automatic weapons.
Slashdot Mirror
I consider myself "Green" and pro-nuclear. Just a reminder that we exist. (granted, I do recognize it has a number of problems, the biggest involving waste & politics)
I'm not sure processed means finished. As parent post mentions, 64 layers of flash storage could mean hundreds of layers of material. Each layer requires multiple steps, and most steps require both time and temperature.
Imagine trying to bake a layer of cake with a required precision of 1/100th inch of bread rise. If you kill the power before it's done, the cake is too flat or too puffy. They actually call them recipe's in the fab, and it's what all the work of manufacturing is - adjusting recipe's for maximum yield (how many devices on the wafer end up actually working). So if a wafer has gone through 24 layers of work, significant (expensive) machine time has been invested already, and it's "processed", as opposed to a "bare" wafer with 0 layers of work.
Note that some steps in the process are salvageable: if the very top layer messed up, they can "clean" the wafer to erase the mistake and simply back up a few steps. But if the whole fab goes down, I'd guess there's enough backlog in cleaning that you might effectively say 95% is lost for the short term.
Your favorite (I tried RTM & liked it 'ok') and mine don't have self-hosted options, I believe. But I still feel the need to share b/c it seemed like such a simple problem to solve and frustrated me until I found SplenDO on Android. I was also a little surprised by what turned out to be most important for me in a task tracker:
1. web interface. SplenDO allows you to use google calendar tasks. It doesn't matter that it feels clunky at first because what's important is I'm already always logged in, so it's fast and easy.
1. (tied for 1st) ease/speed to jot something down when in a hurry. SplenDO does this by a quick-link in the main Android drag-down bar. I didn't realize how much this helped until I used it for a while.
2. prioritize your list by due-date. again, not how I thought I wanted it to work at first, and it seems impossible to prioritize any other way actually. but the fact that it helps you in both the app and google calendar ends up working really well.
So tl;dr Spendo seems like it sucks, yet it's the only task tracker I've ever used (probably tried >10 or so) that has solved this problem so well that I've used it long term.
Agreed, and in response to parent, I read his article, and was actually starting to change my long term belief because it was mostly credible. Then I got to this (search for 'and concluded'):
Did Australia and Great Britain’s reforms prevent mass shootings? It’s hard to say, simply because mass shootings are relatively rare. In the post-buyback period, Great Britain has had one massacre with guns while Australia has had none. It’s hard to calculate how many would have been expected without a ban. Australia looks more successful in this regard, because it had more frequent mass shootings before the ban (averaging about two mass shootings every three years from 1979 to 1996.3)
So one of the article's most important argument legs is that you can't statistically prove Australia's buyback program had any impact. But:
before the buyback, mass shootings: 2 out of every 3 years
after the buyback, mass shootings: 0 in 20 years
You can't draw a statistical conclusion from that? Cmon, man.
You act like banning guns would stop gun violence. We can't even stop millions of people and drugs from flowing over the border into our country, what makes you think we can stop guns from being brought over?
You act like the countries south of us are making all the guns. The truth is Mexico has strict gun laws, they get most of them from us. Now, I'm not sure it would work, but you have to admit it worked for Australia and the UK. The trick is they were surrounded by water. We would have to convince all our neighbors. But Mexico and Canada are already on board. We're the crazy one causing problems for them. If we legalized drugs and controlled guns, the Cartels would lose their income and die. I saw a powerful statistic that ~95% of guns used in murder were stolen from law-abiding citizens. And it's mostly America manufacturing these guns. Makes you think.
Now, I'm not really for banning all guns, I just think people arguing that doing so wouldn't save a lot of lives are not being honest. There are just other arguments. Guns are fun, yes definitely. Guns are used for hunting, yup (granted don't necessarily need handguns or assault weapons). Guns can be used in that insanely rare instance of a modern violent revolution that ends up being for the better, um mayybeee. But, guns don't kill people, can't be regulated, don't escalate violence? Are you kidding, they were invented for killing and oppression, and all other developed countries have proven they can be regulated.
It's the transition period that is the problem.
There are plenty of people who seem to have a visceral reaction against anyone without a job or existing material wealth receiving even the most basic goods or services
I agree it's the transition period that ruins it, but my conclusion is different. Afaict, communism sounds great until human instinct kicks in. My view of history (biased I'm sure, coming from the US) is that countries that go down that path always find corruption from people in charge, introducing inefficiencies that capitalism doesn't have (as much). This explains, in the most simplistic way, why the US ended up with more wealth than Russia. Ie, the most effective laws allow for human instinct, like trying to get ahead. People always compare themselves and feel good or bad based of the comparison, more than the reality. This also explains why "poor" people of today still feel like they're living in dystopia, despite being "rich" compared to the "poor" of yesterday. By it's extension, it predicts no matter how much AI/robots we develop, we'll always be competitive enough to have full work days and a regular ebb & flow of employment rate.
But I digress, and invite anyone that wants to defend/promote Communism/Socialism to give me the best short and long reads - internet or books.
Lol, in my imagination, at least one Russian troll factory worker will take off the troll hat and post something respectful here. :P
The only industrialized western country on the list of top 20 plastic polluters is the United States at No. 20.
The U.S. and Europe are not mismanaging their collected waste, so the plastic trash coming from those countries is due to litter, researchers said.
Smh. We have the money and organization to manage disposal properly, yet as individuals we ruin it by manually trashing the place.
I forgot to mention regularly support and donate to bipartisan causes trying to reduce money in politics (example). If I found a cause that tried to get rid of Gerrymandering, I'd support that too. I haven't found a sexy quick fix for these two problems, but if it were easy it would have been done already.
What legal, practical, reasonable, and achievable action could an individual voter have taken in order to cause a highly desirable additional candidate to emerge?
I think I agree with you - there is no answer here, we're stuck with 2 parties for now. What should we do? I always say the same thing - vote for the better of the 2. Slowly but surely, you'll push both parties in the right direction. Sorry, but there is no magic wand. Politics has always been messy, will always be messy. People keep acting like we've never seen such craziness before, but politicians used to fight with duels - guns instead of words. And the words were just as harsh back then too.
I always vote for the best position in the primary, then the best position in the general (usually these are different answers). Try to research individual local candidates. Just do the best research you can. But smart people should not give up. Too many are voting for the guy they'd like to have a beer with or entertains their fantasies with soundbites. Don't leave the decision up to them.
It's obvious the jetski is by far more useful. But if it's a speed test, this doesn't seem fair. 1) They made the drone operator run from the watch tower 100ft to waterline. 2) The jetski was sitting there 8ft from water, 3) with a 4-wheeler 4) and a driver waiting to help him launch.
Godwin's new corollary says if people are comparing you to Martin Shkreli, you're a horrible person and should reverse what you've done.
Google should downlist American media too, because they also "inject themselves into US politics". In fact, even some private citizens have been caught expressing opinions on politics, and attempting to sway the votes of their friends and neighbors. Google needs to put a stop to that. We can't just have people going around saying whatever they want. Thank God that we have the corporate elite to protect us and tell us what to think.
Ya! And Russia is best at curtailing freedom of speech (well, technically in top 20%), so Google should actually increase the rank of their state-sponsored views!
https://freedomhouse.org/repor...
https://freedomhouse.org/repor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
furthermore. methane is unstable and oxidizes itself in the atmosphere (apart from being processed by certain bacteria) fo much less "greengouse-toxic" gases, if i remember correctly halflife expectation is below 10 years. So it is continuously is removed from atmosphere (unlike CO2 accumulation) and CO2 seems by far much bigger problem
Not saying you're wrong, but another way of looking at the same data is that this is a low-hanging fruit we can make a difference in immediately. If this is an issue of just cutting down on beef, I'd say there's more upside than consequences. I reduced my beef intake by around 90%. I've benefitted by slightly better health and a slightly fatter wallet, which is usually the end of a decision if we're being honest. I'm not saying I don't absolutely love eating beef, but chicken and fish taste good too, and I slowly eat a little more legumes every year. It's fun to try new stuff, and it hasn't affected my weight-lifting. The only negative affect I've had is I get judged by people living in the movie Idiocracy (yes, I live in Texas).
Except, of course, that transportation isn't "the worst offender"; globally it's about 14% of total GHG emissions, and only a fraction of that can reasonably be switched to "zero emission". The "worst offenders" are industry, heating, electricity, and agriculture.
True, (but or and,) guess what contributes to that agriculture section? Cattle have to eat, and they eat a lot, compared to to all our other protein sources. They contribute double all the other animals combined.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/...
So, besides just the farts (aka eructation), here's some sources of greenhouse gasses produced through the creation of food used to feed livestock:
Feed production:
Direct and indirect N2O from:
Application of synthetic N
Application of manure
Direct deposition of manure by grazing and scavenging animals
Crop residue management
Non-feed production:
Energy use in field operations
Energy use in feed transport and processing
Fertilizer manufacture
Feed blending
Production of non-crop feedstuff (fishmeal, lime and synthetic amino acids)
CH4 from flooded rice cultivation
Land-use change related to soybean cultivation
This doesn't make sense to me either. Under WTO rules, retaliation is permitted against dumping and subsidies. But there is no retaliation permitted just for low prices.
Uh yeah, where do you think those low prices come from? The Chinese government provides subsidies to disruptive industries...
True, A link to back this up:
https://www.scientificamerican...
An interesting article about floating panels, plus a comparison of US vs China investments:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda...
I initially disliked the tariffs, fearing trade war and escalation of prices - I'd rather us start investing as much as China and beat them at their own low-price game. But after reading the WTO Anti-dumping and subsidy rules, I think this isn't supposed to start a trade war - it's the legal and appropriate reaction to China subsidies (and dumping I guess). I'd still like to increase US government investments in research and subsidies anyway.
My suspicion is they're benign and that this is a well-known phenomena, or rare, but it upsets people concerned about the idea of "un-natural" or "synthetic" things making their way in their food source.
Actually it seems this has been an area of study for a few years now:
http://system.suny.edu/system-...
Microplastics affect different aspects of the environment. They can affect fish, birds and other wildlife who may ingest the plastics, causing internal blockage, dehydration and death in these species.
Microplastics can also transport other pollutants. They absorb pollutants already in the water, such as DDT, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). When ingested by wildlife or humans (either directly or indirectly), these plastics contain high concentrations of these dangerous toxins which can become even more concentrated and dangerous as they bioaccumulate in the food chain.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Public health impact of plastics: An overview
2011 Sep-Dec
I guess microplastic fibers are different than microplastic beads, and maybe definitive, specific studies haven't been published yet. But, logic would say they probably have the same ill effects. I do agree I'd wait for the studies before passing laws. But nothing wrong with have a product ready to solve the problem.
Serious question.. How? What about small plastic fibers is a problem as they go though my digestive tract?
http://system.suny.edu/system-...
Microplastics affect different aspects of the environment. They can affect fish, birds and other wildlife who may ingest the plastics, causing internal blockage, dehydration and death in these species.
Microplastics can also transport other pollutants. They absorb pollutants already in the water, such as DDT, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). When ingested by wildlife or humans (either directly or indirectly), these plastics contain high concentrations of these dangerous toxins which can become even more concentrated and dangerous as they bioaccumulate in the food chain.
http://digitalcommons.salve.ed...
Some consequences of micro plastic ingestion that have been found in fish include reduced reproductive ability,
decreased feeding ability, abnormal behavior and death.25
The primary point of anti-trust laws is not to break up companies, but seek remedies against companies when they violate the laws....
Well, that's one way to describe anti-trust law goals. A better one would be "to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers." I hope everyone will admit that these mega-corps could really benefit from more competition.
it is still collusion with a foreign power and treason to a high degree.
Are we at war with Russia? Or are they our ally? How is diplomacy with a foreign state we are not at war with treasonous?
This is beyond diplomacy, you do not have to be at war with a country.
A federal law, Section 30121 of Title 52, makes it a crime for any foreigner to contribute or donate money or some “other thing of value” in connection with an American election, or for anyone to solicit a foreigner to do so. Previous court cases concerning similar related laws have held, that a “thing of value” can be something intangible, like information.
That's because TFA discusses the written FCC comments. But the battleforthenet link might arguably be more effective.
Not sure why it's buried, but here's the link:
https://www.battleforthenet.co...
For whatever reason, Microsoft was just never able to get mobile right.
Totally agree - I'm floored by all the comments claiming MS was late. But I believe what they missed was apps. I agree with the other fond memories of WM mentioned. I remember, despite seriously hating MS, I thought in 2006, "Wow, they got this WM 5.x pretty right, this is the wave of the future. It's just a pain to install software. They need something like apt-get." How many years did MS sit on it's butt before Apple came out with a technically inferior phone, with the exception of the app store?
Ya, and any webhost running cPanel can do it through Comodo (or letsencrypt with a plugin):
https://blog.cpanel.com/autoss...
Yup, and any host running cPanel will do it through Comodo (or letsencrypt with a plugin):
https://blog.cpanel.com/autoss...
With extinction looming on the horizon if we do nothing
What's the mechanism? How does one go from modest sea level rises over long periods of time to extinction? No one has presented any threat related to AGW that is significant enough to cause human extinction. Instead it's all idle hysteria.
Extinction may be overreach. But if you think about it, climate change means more rain and hurricanes in some places (and we get an idea of how much record-breaking hurricanes are costing us already), and maybe more importantly drought in others. We actually do have an example of what happens when drought affects crops in a region - war:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-11/political-strife-caused-climate-change-doomed-maya
So the Mayans, numbering over a million in the Yucatan in 800AD, fell to less than 200k, just 100 years later (numbers coming from memory of a Jared Diamon book - correct me pls). It was almost a 90% drop in population due to war, famine, and all the other social effects that more and more evidence indicates were initially due to climate change.
And of course, the Mayans hadn't invented nuclear or even automatic weapons.