So fine, in the context of cosmological curvature, "almost infinite" makes sense. In the context of natural resources, "almost infinite" means "I'll be dead by the time it's used up."
Well, we have plenty of coal, and if you think converting it into CO2 and dumping it in the atmosphere is a good idea, well, that's an argument I'm thoroughly tired of. But where on earth do you get the idea that there's plenty of water?
One theory I've heard is that the huge demand for pollination services in most countries has kept beekeeper moving their hives around all the time, often transporting them thousands of miles at a time. This stresses the colonies and makes them susceptible to a variety of ailments. This practice is supposed to be much less prevalent in Oz. This is consistent with the fact that there's no obvious link between CCD and any single external factor.
None of which should be construed as a defense of indiscriminate use of pesticides. That most definitely does cause all kind of problems. CCD just doesn't happen to be one of them.
No, because you've just replaced one illogical expression with another. An infinite value remains infinite, regardless of any finite value you subtract from it.
Of course, what they're trying to say is "this resource is so big we can't imagine ever using it up." Which, of course, says little about their imagination.
I thoroughly agree with the point you're trying to make. But note that pesticides are not that strongly implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder. The problem is unknown in Australia, where pesticides are just as heavily used as anywhere else. It is extremely likely that it's due to some kind of environmental stress, which fits in with your abuse-of-resources theme.
Why move to a place with a high likelihood of flooding or otherwise detrimental weather?
Because such places tend to be centers of commerce. New York was a major port for most of its history, because it had a harbor and the river made it a good place for transhipping from inland..The port attracted merchants, and the merchants evolved into capitalists, bankers, and commodity traders. Other businesses started there because it was useful to be close to capital. Immigrants came because it was port of entry, and then businesses came because the immigrants were a good source of labor.
I myself live in another port city, Portland OR. And yep, we get floods too, because we're right on the Willamette River. Why is the city here? Because 150 years ago, this was as far up the Willamette you could sail in an ocean-going ship. Economically, Portland is a sort of mini-New York,
Neither of these cities is an isolated case. Flood plains tends to attract farmers (good soil) and business people come to make a living off the farmers. Rivers and estuaries are good for low-cost transport of bulk products, so they tend to attract heavy industry (think Pittsburg).. The only city I've ever lived in that wasn't in a floodplain was Fontana, CA, which is in a desert.
And Fontana's an interesting case. For a long time its economy was driven by Kaiser Steel, a plant Henry Kaiser built because there wasn't enough steel to go around during WW II, and he wanted to build Liberty Ships. Existing steel companies (whose main motive was they didn't want competition from Kaiser) told Congress that it was a boondoggle — because Fontana is nowhere near a river, raising the cost of bringing coal and iron ore in and steel out.
One more note: New York hasn't had that many hurricanes. Historically, we're talking less than one a century. This business of having one every year is a recent development based on... oh I won't say, I'm tired of arguing with the denier trolls.
Sigh. One more time: it's not the fact of hurricanes that's being blamed on GW, it's the frequency. New York has had "century storms" two years in a row. And this year it may well have more than one. That's a pretty clear sign there's more energy being pumped into the weather system. And that extra energy comes from... anyone? Let's not always see the same hands.
Ironically, George Romney's support for civil rights had a lot to do with him never getting his party's nomination. He actually walked out of the 1964 GOP convention (accompanied by his son Mitt) over the issue.
I'd feel better about living in a liberal city if it weren't surrounded by hard-right types. I moved here partly so I could live in a city that was designed for people, not cars, and yet Portland's much vaunted people-oriented infrastructure is the source of much condemnation by our neighbors, who consider it yet another "socialist" boondoggle.
And the racist element is there too. We have most of the African-Americans in the region, and one argument against expanding mass transit is that it makes surrounding communities more accessible to "criminal elements" — a pretty obvious code word. I'm sometimes amused at the claim that burglars are schelping their swag home on the light rail, until I remember what a bigoted mindset this weirdness demonstrates.
I agree with your math-based approach to hazards, but I think you might be understating the impact of wind farms on birds. The problem is that good sites for wind farms tend to be in migratory flyways. Other human impacts tend to be more random.
Not, in itself, an argument against wind farms, since there are ways you can mitigate the effect (careful siting mainly). Just pointing out that the scale of a project does not necessarily correlate to impact.
Doesn't that depend on the alien? If they're "To Serve Man" aliens, it might actually be a good thing, since they'd want to farm their humans sustainably.
And where are we supposed to get the cellulose? There are only so many trees and our agricultural lands are already maxed. Oh yeah, and we fertilize our crops with petroleum derivatives.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you read my post all the way through? It's not that long.
And fix your stupid link.
So fine, in the context of cosmological curvature, "almost infinite" makes sense. In the context of natural resources, "almost infinite" means "I'll be dead by the time it's used up."
That joke was microscopic!
The sources I've read say otherwise. We can have a link duel if you want, but I find them boring.
I think the "alarmism" comes in when the data sharing is unintentional.
I was unaware that it could be changed at all.
Well, we have plenty of coal, and if you think converting it into CO2 and dumping it in the atmosphere is a good idea, well, that's an argument I'm thoroughly tired of. But where on earth do you get the idea that there's plenty of water?
One theory I've heard is that the huge demand for pollination services in most countries has kept beekeeper moving their hives around all the time, often transporting them thousands of miles at a time. This stresses the colonies and makes them susceptible to a variety of ailments. This practice is supposed to be much less prevalent in Oz. This is consistent with the fact that there's no obvious link between CCD and any single external factor.
None of which should be construed as a defense of indiscriminate use of pesticides. That most definitely does cause all kind of problems. CCD just doesn't happen to be one of them.
No, because you've just replaced one illogical expression with another. An infinite value remains infinite, regardless of any finite value you subtract from it.
Of course, what they're trying to say is "this resource is so big we can't imagine ever using it up." Which, of course, says little about their imagination.
I thoroughly agree with the point you're trying to make. But note that pesticides are not that strongly implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder. The problem is unknown in Australia, where pesticides are just as heavily used as anywhere else. It is extremely likely that it's due to some kind of environmental stress, which fits in with your abuse-of-resources theme.
We've used up all the fish. Now we can work on the smaller stuff!
Even if you have the hat?
The 1938 hurricane missed New York.
"Propaganda" is conspeak for "stuff we don't want to hear about".
Why move to a place with a high likelihood of flooding or otherwise detrimental weather?
Because such places tend to be centers of commerce. New York was a major port for most of its history, because it had a harbor and the river made it a good place for transhipping from inland. .The port attracted merchants, and the merchants evolved into capitalists, bankers, and commodity traders. Other businesses started there because it was useful to be close to capital. Immigrants came because it was port of entry, and then businesses came because the immigrants were a good source of labor.
I myself live in another port city, Portland OR. And yep, we get floods too, because we're right on the Willamette River. Why is the city here? Because 150 years ago, this was as far up the Willamette you could sail in an ocean-going ship. Economically, Portland is a sort of mini-New York,
Neither of these cities is an isolated case. Flood plains tends to attract farmers (good soil) and business people come to make a living off the farmers. Rivers and estuaries are good for low-cost transport of bulk products, so they tend to attract heavy industry (think Pittsburg).. The only city I've ever lived in that wasn't in a floodplain was Fontana, CA, which is in a desert.
And Fontana's an interesting case. For a long time its economy was driven by Kaiser Steel, a plant Henry Kaiser built because there wasn't enough steel to go around during WW II, and he wanted to build Liberty Ships. Existing steel companies (whose main motive was they didn't want competition from Kaiser) told Congress that it was a boondoggle — because Fontana is nowhere near a river, raising the cost of bringing coal and iron ore in and steel out.
One more note: New York hasn't had that many hurricanes. Historically, we're talking less than one a century. This business of having one every year is a recent development based on ... oh I won't say, I'm tired of arguing with the denier trolls.
Sigh. One more time: it's not the fact of hurricanes that's being blamed on GW, it's the frequency. New York has had "century storms" two years in a row. And this year it may well have more than one. That's a pretty clear sign there's more energy being pumped into the weather system. And that extra energy comes from... anyone? Let's not always see the same hands.
Sorry, too late.
Small detail: nobody built that city. It just sort of grew up there.
Ironically, George Romney's support for civil rights had a lot to do with him never getting his party's nomination. He actually walked out of the 1964 GOP convention (accompanied by his son Mitt) over the issue.
I'd feel better about living in a liberal city if it weren't surrounded by hard-right types. I moved here partly so I could live in a city that was designed for people, not cars, and yet Portland's much vaunted people-oriented infrastructure is the source of much condemnation by our neighbors, who consider it yet another "socialist" boondoggle.
And the racist element is there too. We have most of the African-Americans in the region, and one argument against expanding mass transit is that it makes surrounding communities more accessible to "criminal elements" — a pretty obvious code word. I'm sometimes amused at the claim that burglars are schelping their swag home on the light rail, until I remember what a bigoted mindset this weirdness demonstrates.
It's mineshafts, you cultural illiterate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iesXUFOlWC0
Sure, if you can make a joke about it, it must not be a problem. I call that the Rush Limbaugh fallacy.
As the saying goes, what has posterity ever done for us?
I agree with your math-based approach to hazards, but I think you might be understating the impact of wind farms on birds. The problem is that good sites for wind farms tend to be in migratory flyways. Other human impacts tend to be more random.
Not, in itself, an argument against wind farms, since there are ways you can mitigate the effect (careful siting mainly). Just pointing out that the scale of a project does not necessarily correlate to impact.
Doesn't that depend on the alien? If they're "To Serve Man" aliens, it might actually be a good thing, since they'd want to farm their humans sustainably.
And where are we supposed to get the cellulose? There are only so many trees and our agricultural lands are already maxed. Oh yeah, and we fertilize our crops with petroleum derivatives.
Did you miss the part where I said that coffee prices were going up faster than inflation?