Yes, but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything. You can't supply if the product doesn't exist, no matter how high the demand is.
First of all, American farms will not end without subsidies. Plenty of folks would prefer to buy locally grown produce, even at a higher price.
Plenty? I doubt it. Enough to keep smaller scale farms running with specialist markets, not enough to keep the city-feeding farms going.
Second, it is hard to envision any scenario that would affect all food (produce/grain) exporting countries at the same time.
I agree. It's highly unlikely.
The fact is free markets have always done the best job of supplying humans with food.
All the richest nations, that have the best fed populations, have farm subsidies. Now, I think they would continue just fine without them, but "free markets have always done the best job" is untrue: in the richest countries it hasn't even been tried!
You can't store enough food to last your entire population for a year! Anyway, you could import your food from stable countries/allies etc only, and frankly, barring sudden huge disruption from global climate change, I suspect it would be perfectly safe to open it up to the world market. But it's not done at the moment. Maybe paranoia carried over from the Cold War?
I think that's very unlikely. There's a price of land at which American farmers can compete
I'm not really sure what the price of land has to do with it. If there was an open, unsubsidised food market, American farms simply wouldn't make enough money to keep going. Food is too cheap. You either need to raise the price of food (with tariffs, for example) or subsidise the farms.
No, it's why you have subsidies. Maybe the subsidies should be replaced with tariffs (it might prove politically problematic) but subsidies are what currently keep the farms running.
Why not lobby to drop all farm subsidies, not just the ones for ethanol?
Because food is cheaper to import than produce locally so all the farms would go out of business. And you don't want to depend on other, potentially unstable, countries for food.
I do not realize that, and will not realize that until someone proves it and the proof survives the reviews.
Alternatively, you could just not realise that "the conditions that caused the loss of the original atmosphere are still present" and the problem is solved!
I prefer to save my hydrogen as "hydrogen dioxide".
PROS: 1. Safe (even known to be drinkable when pure)
I'm not convinced that hydroperoxyl radical (HO2) is entirely safe to drink...and if you could get enough HO2 together, it would be pretty flammable wouldn't it?
Re:GNOME, Ubuntu, and the colour green...
on
Gnome 2.18 Released
·
· Score: 1
Ubuntu is ugly because they've gone with browns, oranges, and reds -- the worst part of the spectrum.
That's just a daft thing to say. BBC News has a similar colour scheme at the moment, getting away from the "everything blue" theme that was fashionable in 2000, and no-one complains about that. "worst part of the spectrum"...what is that even supposed to mean?
No, it doesn't. Yes, there are costs but there are equivalent costs and more to create a new bottle.
I didn't provide a cite because you're the one making the mental claim. See http://www.sks-bottle.com/Recycle_Plastic.html or just google for cites yourself. Did you honestly, really think that countries have recycling schemes just to "feel good" about themselves?
Arbitrarily deciding that a position someone present can't be valid solely on the basis of their political beliefs is an inadequate substitute for the scientific method.
Well, you've got me there. After all, I can hardly agree with the political positions of both the Conservatives and the Communists at the same time! If only I'd thought to give a link to the scientific rebuttal somewhere in my post...like in the first paragraph...
It does, however, allow you to dismiss outright anything that might challenge your beliefs, protecting you from the risk of having to admit you might be wrong.
Very true! It is a scary prospect that I could be wrong! That would mean that a group of oil industry shills and a sci-fi writer actually did know more about the earth's climate than the scientists who actually study the subject! Hell, just Crichton actually getting any bit of science right is probably a sign of the apocalypse! They've got us coming and going!
These guys are back public eye because they recently appeared in a UK Channel4 documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Basically a rehash of all the outdated silly arguments you've heard a thousand times before. You can read the RealClimate response here if you like.
But that's pretty boring, science type stuff. What's much more fun is watching the right-wing contingent defending this piece of crap, proclaiming its truth and accuracy, when the film was produced by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party! Regular contributors to the RCP's journal, "Living Marxism" no less.
The sad fact is, most people are so poorly educated that even politicians have no problem not only espousing obvious logical fallacies, but calling them by name (slippery slope is a fallacy and calling something a slippery slope does not bolster your argument, it undermines it, when taking to people who understand the rules of logic).
No, the slippery slope argument is just that: an argument. Just because something can be a fallacy does not mean it always is. The slippery slope argument can also be valid (in the most trivial case, literally: if you push that box onto that slippery slope, it will slide all the way to the bottom).
Yeah, you've said it before, but your cite from the right wing think tank (predictably receiving funding from Exxon) is from 10 years ago and filled with half-truths and outright lies (look up the latest IPCC report and see how it conflicts with what's written there). The Crichton crap has been addressed a million times already. What makes you think quoting these idiots is more convincing than what actual climatologists have to say on the matter?
t's kind of hard to answer your numerous questions without knowing what icon, exactly, you're clicking on. If you click the icon in the System Tray that looks like a PCMCIA card sliding out of a slot and has a tooltip to the effect of "Eject Removable Devices", it will pop up a menu of all the removable devices on your computer including USB disks......There's no right-clicking involved... if you're right-clicking at all, you're doing something wrong.
This is not his fault. This is because the icons in the System Tray behave totally inconsistently. Single clicking on a lot of them does absolutely nothing, so people by default have got used to either double clicking or right clicking on them.
What he is doing is right clicking on removable devices, selecting Safely Remove Devices, choosing the device from the list, clicking stop, choosing the device from the list again (to confirm), clicking OK. This stops the device and pops up the "safe to remove" message. Total of six clicks actually. Double clicking on the icon brings it down to five as it brings up the list directly but is otherwise the same. Since these are the actions (double and right click) that most system tray icons respond to, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people removed devices in this way (if they bother at all).
If System Tray icons always responded to a single click people would find the quick way without all this hassle.
But I don't think it'll stop people from downloading apps. Let's face it. I've told my father in law multiple times not to download and install crap, yet he still does, and his machine gets bogged down.
Because they're getting mixed messages. They're told to go to a website to download a cool or useful bit of software, and they do and it's good and it works. And then they're told not to download "crap" from a website, but how are they supposed to tell what's "crap" and what's "good"? If they installed all their "good" software from their "Add/Remove Programs" icon then there would be no mixed message: you just never install from a website.
There are some things you need to install from non-official repositories at the moment but they are for installation, which doesn't apply in the scenario we're talking about (where Linux is mainstream and presumably pre-installed).
So linux gives you a location of spyware-free software, but it's nothing that's unique to the OS, just it's implementation.
So? Unique or not, my point stands. Windows doesn't have this at the moment; if it did I think we'd see less spy/malware on Windows too. I'm not sure how they could implement it without either falling foul of monopoly misuse regulations (if they only included their own software) or having to spend a fortune on testing a huge bank of closed source software (if they would allow any software to qualify). Indeed, I'm not sure the latter would even be physically possible!
But since much spyware is "installed" by the user, when they install a program they want to install, would this change with a different OS?
Yes.
If people move to Linux, OSX, etc. they are still going to download and install programs.
Yes, but they (being non-technical users) will download them from the approved (more to the point, the included) repositories instead of randomly from a website.
And if those programs have spyware bundled in with them, how will that change the malware situation?
The repositories won't carry programs with malware.
The idea should be to get away from this "install something from random website" culture. I think non-technical users would be very happy to be given a list of "approved" software that they knew was free from spy/malware.
I realise this could sound like insisting they use one particular package, but it's not. They'd still (for example) have the option of choosing a word processor from OpenOffice, Abiword, KWord, etc. they'd just happen to know that any of them was a safe choice.
I don't care about popular media. There was no scientific consensus on "global cooling" and claiming there was is simply revisionist. Scientists freely admitted they didn't know what was going to happen and needed to collect more data; which is exactly what they've been doing. Of course the vast increase we've seen in computing power has also been of immense help in analysing that data.
I am not alone questioning the impact of humans. People far smarter than I, who are experts, ask the same questions. See what Dr. Tim Ball has to say.
Don't put yourself down. Tim Ball sold out to the oil companies a long time ago. If he has data that indicates what he says is correct, why hasn't he published it? Where are his peer reviewed papers? Oh, because he doesn't have any, it's just that all the other climatologists are wrong just because he says so!
Ahh, why am I bothering. If you really wanted to know what was happening you'd read a climatology journal and see what they had to say. You prefer to gulp down and then regurgitate the same tired, inane arguments that you've been fed by the Exxon sponsored, despite the fact that 5 minutes of googling (or even rational thought) would expose the holes in that nonsense. Stupid arguments that are debunked every time this topic appears on slashdot, and yet there's always someone who'll trot them out again as though they were some new revelation.
Remind me... are these the same scientists, or different ones, that attested with equal certainty as to human activity causing Global Cooling?
I've got an idea: why don't you actually read what it says in the article you linked to? Then you can explain how you can possibly construe that as "equal certainty".
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's why you have subsidies. Maybe the subsidies should be replaced with tariffs (it might prove politically problematic) but subsidies are what currently keep the farms running.
Except I never assumed that. I even linked to a scientific rebuttal in my post. Are you incapable of reading?
No, it's not. Read this before you start making things up.
No, it doesn't. Yes, there are costs but there are equivalent costs and more to create a new bottle.
I didn't provide a cite because you're the one making the mental claim. See http://www.sks-bottle.com/Recycle_Plastic.html or just google for cites yourself. Did you honestly, really think that countries have recycling schemes just to "feel good" about themselves?
These guys are back public eye because they recently appeared in a UK Channel4 documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Basically a rehash of all the outdated silly arguments you've heard a thousand times before. You can read the RealClimate response here if you like.
But that's pretty boring, science type stuff. What's much more fun is watching the right-wing contingent defending this piece of crap, proclaiming its truth and accuracy, when the film was produced by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party! Regular contributors to the RCP's journal, "Living Marxism" no less.
What an interesting meeting of minds.
Yeah, you've said it before, but your cite from the right wing think tank (predictably receiving funding from Exxon) is from 10 years ago and filled with half-truths and outright lies (look up the latest IPCC report and see how it conflicts with what's written there). The Crichton crap has been addressed a million times already. What makes you think quoting these idiots is more convincing than what actual climatologists have to say on the matter?
What he is doing is right clicking on removable devices, selecting Safely Remove Devices, choosing the device from the list, clicking stop, choosing the device from the list again (to confirm), clicking OK. This stops the device and pops up the "safe to remove" message. Total of six clicks actually. Double clicking on the icon brings it down to five as it brings up the list directly but is otherwise the same. Since these are the actions (double and right click) that most system tray icons respond to, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of people removed devices in this way (if they bother at all).
If System Tray icons always responded to a single click people would find the quick way without all this hassle.
There are some things you need to install from non-official repositories at the moment but they are for installation, which doesn't apply in the scenario we're talking about (where Linux is mainstream and presumably pre-installed).
So? Unique or not, my point stands. Windows doesn't have this at the moment; if it did I think we'd see less spy/malware on Windows too. I'm not sure how they could implement it without either falling foul of monopoly misuse regulations (if they only included their own software) or having to spend a fortune on testing a huge bank of closed source software (if they would allow any software to qualify). Indeed, I'm not sure the latter would even be physically possible!
The idea should be to get away from this "install something from random website" culture. I think non-technical users would be very happy to be given a list of "approved" software that they knew was free from spy/malware.
I realise this could sound like insisting they use one particular package, but it's not. They'd still (for example) have the option of choosing a word processor from OpenOffice, Abiword, KWord, etc. they'd just happen to know that any of them was a safe choice.
There's a bit of discussion here explaining reasons why the patch didn't get accepted into the kernel.
Ahh, why am I bothering. If you really wanted to know what was happening you'd read a climatology journal and see what they had to say. You prefer to gulp down and then regurgitate the same tired, inane arguments that you've been fed by the Exxon sponsored, despite the fact that 5 minutes of googling (or even rational thought) would expose the holes in that nonsense. Stupid arguments that are debunked every time this topic appears on slashdot, and yet there's always someone who'll trot them out again as though they were some new revelation.