Absolutely. Your link mentions lithium, cobalt, and graphite as examples of peak rare earth metals which are unlikely to keep pace with any significant increase in global demand.
Other alternative energy advances are also handicapped by infinitesimal earthly reserves of essential metals: tellurium for solar panels, terbium in new gen compact fluorescent bulbs, and even platinum as a fuel cell catalyst.
There's a silver lining, though, as this buoys the chance that we'll be mining off-planet sooner rather than later.
An edible bird that was in direct competition with humans for nuts, berries, and cultivated grain happened to go extinct as these selfsame bipeds were settling a continent where the pigeons had previously flourished.
The headline could just as easily read: Average HS student given little chance of ----------------- success.
There's not a thing wrong with being average. By its very definition,and including those slightly above or below the mean, it describes the bulk of our human resources.
Identifying and lifting the gifted out of the noise is always a noble project.
Natural selection and cross breeding/hybridization are not what 99% of us are talking about when we discuss "GMO"
Conflating the two ideas doesn't give me much confidence in anything else you have to say on the subject of GMOs.
I think what I'm hearing you say is that modifying a life form's genetic material over dozens to hundreds of generations is somehow inherently different than modifying that genetic material over one (or a few) generations.
But relevant arguments aside, the most important thing to remember here is that I can ill afford to lose your confidence, my ephemeral friend. Don't even kid about that shit!
The distinction you make between gene-splicing and genetic manipulation by selecting for preferred traits is a valid one, especially on a scale of time.
I will take issue with the likelihood you suggest ("nigh impossible") a fish gene could be bred into a tomato. If we can place it there, then so could have evolution... especially if it were an alpha survival mechanism.
It's a buzzword for panicking the masses, this splicing of genes, but the technology cannot be unlearned now. If we don't kill ourselves with it, and that is true for most of the promising technology in our arsenal, we may design future humans who can adapt to life on Mars and the bottom of our oceans.
It's pot luck really... the probability is close to equal that you'll be modded informative for your blasphemy.
It assumed a lot of knowledge about how current EU GMO law works. I think that it was saying that currently the EU in Brussels approves GMOs in European agriculture, and then national governments can choose whether to let the crops into their countries. So the EU approved a strain of corn, and something else (it's mentioned in the article), and France/Germany/etc. have said those two crops aren't allowed within their borders. This just gets rid of the EU step. They'll be banned in Berlin and Paris, not Brussels.
I am as interested in eating healthy as the next bloke who cares about productive longevity, but corn is the most genetically modified crop in the history of the world...for a reason. It's caloric value per cultivated acre rivals that of the best of the grains. Without these super-grains, the human race has outstripped nature's ability to feed the 7 billion or so of us.
The article also mentions that the nations would need a reason to justify banning a GMO, but given that the MEPs quoted were mostly from countries that enthusiastically enforce the ban and nobody was going "hey, but your government will be forced to let GMOs in," I strongly suspect that the list of reasons a state can give for justifying a ban is really long.
The human race was eating GMO long before it wasn't cool. Wild grains were exploited and improved by the first hundred generations of hunter/gatherers before science knew what a genome was.
Verizon and Comcast issued statements expressing their willingness to be open about their peering activities and stressed that no regulation is required.
Well hell, as long as the for-profit corporations are on record promising there's nothing to see here, what's all the fuss?
$184 million of the money went to reimburse foreign players (non-American) who had money in the game when Black Friday brought activity on the sites to a halt.
American players were allowed reimbursement, which came out of the remaining $547 million, after filing with the Dept of Justice.
Part of the settlement money paid by PokerStars was to acquire it's former rival's assets (Full Tilt).
I am not yet fully onboard with the theory they already know everything.
There is just too much information out there in to be sifted through, so unless you behave in a manner that arouses their interest, you can still fly under the radar.
And I can live with condescending. It's practically the price of admission to speak with a lot of smart people. Just don't ever renege on "adorable" again.
That pretty much renders moot the Crypto-currency's primary advantage of anonymity.
Could you even pretend surprise when the public purchase of a large block of the coinage placed you on the interesting list with the TLAs?
On the economic side of the equation, wouldn't they keep the price higher if they spread out the block auctions a bit more? That's a lot of coin to dump quickly.... unless taking down the coins value is the intent.
I still enjoy the tangible aspect of owning a hard copy of a few hundred movies, in much the same nostalgic way a dead tree novel is sometimes preferable to my Kindle.
While not a consummate prepper, I can still lose cable, internet, and even electrical service... and bide the disaster with a semblance of civilized entertainment.
Countries that adopt the business climates most favorable to large corporations often attract them to the detriment of other nation-states.
The governments of countries shorted by the Irish model covet the money, too.
It's difficult to sustain a socialist state from within, and not that the mega-corporations are without sin, but they've become the shakedown target of choice for systems starved for cash flow.
Unless and until technology emerges that makes defying gravity much more efficient, there is no advantage (outside of the WOW factor) for using these vehicles on the highway.
Ownership is a way to store wealth and control property available as a perk to citizens in most modern cultures. It could be posited that an individual's right to maintain control of earnestly acquired possessions is a cornerstone of fair and enlightened societies.
Rather than sharecropping a parcel of land for generations at the whim of a noble, my family is able to pour their hard work into the acquisition of land and a home, and the security those things provide. In exchange for the individual right to ownership, each person is obliged to respect the ownership rights of others.
I am aware the folks at the patent office appear to have warm crack pipes in their possession much of the time, of late. Ownership, the privilege, is exploited by the wealthiest within the system like virtually all freedoms are. The "mine and yours" statistical model is still eminently fair as long as the poorest maintain their right to inclusion within the system.
What does it mean to be "yours?" Why hell, that I can have something that is "mine".
Slashdot Mirror
Other alternative energy advances are also handicapped by infinitesimal earthly reserves of essential metals: tellurium for solar panels, terbium in new gen compact fluorescent bulbs, and even platinum as a fuel cell catalyst.
There's a silver lining, though, as this buoys the chance that we'll be mining off-planet sooner rather than later.
you kind of wish you were.
Perhaps you could be more clear as you improve your ability to post in a more cognizant fashion.
An edible bird that was in direct competition with humans for nuts, berries, and cultivated grain happened to go extinct as these selfsame bipeds were settling a continent where the pigeons had previously flourished.
The causation is strong with this one.
There's not a thing wrong with being average. By its very definition,and including those slightly above or below the mean, it describes the bulk of our human resources.
Identifying and lifting the gifted out of the noise is always a noble project.
I, for one, welcome our scientific overlords... may they continue to advance and outpace the hold on our people the religions have.
Natural selection and cross breeding/hybridization are not what 99% of us are talking about when we discuss "GMO"
Conflating the two ideas doesn't give me much confidence in anything else you have to say on the subject of GMOs.
I think what I'm hearing you say is that modifying a life form's genetic material over dozens to hundreds of generations is somehow inherently different than modifying that genetic material over one (or a few) generations.
But relevant arguments aside, the most important thing to remember here is that I can ill afford to lose your confidence, my ephemeral friend. Don't even kid about that shit!
I will take issue with the likelihood you suggest ("nigh impossible") a fish gene could be bred into a tomato. If we can place it there, then so could have evolution... especially if it were an alpha survival mechanism.
It's a buzzword for panicking the masses, this splicing of genes, but the technology cannot be unlearned now. If we don't kill ourselves with it, and that is true for most of the promising technology in our arsenal, we may design future humans who can adapt to life on Mars and the bottom of our oceans.
It's not that the information you present is completely implausible, but could we get a Skylark or something?
That went from zero to hateful in almost NO time at all.
So I should probably be banned from Slashdot.
It's pot luck really... the probability is close to equal that you'll be modded informative for your blasphemy.
It assumed a lot of knowledge about how current EU GMO law works. I think that it was saying that currently the EU in Brussels approves GMOs in European agriculture, and then national governments can choose whether to let the crops into their countries. So the EU approved a strain of corn, and something else (it's mentioned in the article), and France/Germany/etc. have said those two crops aren't allowed within their borders. This just gets rid of the EU step. They'll be banned in Berlin and Paris, not Brussels.
I am as interested in eating healthy as the next bloke who cares about productive longevity, but corn is the most genetically modified crop in the history of the world...for a reason. It's caloric value per cultivated acre rivals that of the best of the grains. Without these super-grains, the human race has outstripped nature's ability to feed the 7 billion or so of us.
The article also mentions that the nations would need a reason to justify banning a GMO, but given that the MEPs quoted were mostly from countries that enthusiastically enforce the ban and nobody was going "hey, but your government will be forced to let GMOs in," I strongly suspect that the list of reasons a state can give for justifying a ban is really long.
The human race was eating GMO long before it wasn't cool. Wild grains were exploited and improved by the first hundred generations of hunter/gatherers before science knew what a genome was.
Verizon and Comcast issued statements expressing their willingness to be open about their peering activities and stressed that no regulation is required.
Well hell, as long as the for-profit corporations are on record promising there's nothing to see here, what's all the fuss?
American players were allowed reimbursement, which came out of the remaining $547 million, after filing with the Dept of Justice.
Part of the settlement money paid by PokerStars was to acquire it's former rival's assets (Full Tilt).
There is just too much information out there in to be sifted through, so unless you behave in a manner that arouses their interest, you can still fly under the radar.
And I can live with condescending. It's practically the price of admission to speak with a lot of smart people. Just don't ever renege on "adorable" again.
That sounds fair and Democratic first rattle out of the box.
Could you even pretend surprise when the public purchase of a large block of the coinage placed you on the interesting list with the TLAs?
On the economic side of the equation, wouldn't they keep the price higher if they spread out the block auctions a bit more? That's a lot of coin to dump quickly.... unless taking down the coins value is the intent.
Politicians are to voters what teen-aged boys are to the teen-aged girls they'd like to procreate with.
They say what they need to in order to get erected, er, elected.
I feel like a Late Show host who's just discovered Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin in the same afternoon.
Don't worry bro, your check is probably in the mail.
Obama hasn't been scary as a Black President at all.
He doesn't rock the boat any more than his melanin-challenged predecessors.
Another exploit undermines a heretofore unknown weakness.
Exploitation that doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
I'm sure whatever you have to say can wait until you're smarter.
While not a consummate prepper, I can still lose cable, internet, and even electrical service... and bide the disaster with a semblance of civilized entertainment.
With any luck, your State Congressman will be there long enough to control a powerful committee like Ways and Means.
Think Robert Byrd.
The governments of countries shorted by the Irish model covet the money, too.
It's difficult to sustain a socialist state from within, and not that the mega-corporations are without sin, but they've become the shakedown target of choice for systems starved for cash flow.
Yes.
Unless and until technology emerges that makes defying gravity much more efficient, there is no advantage (outside of the WOW factor) for using these vehicles on the highway.
Off-road applications are a different matter.
Rather than sharecropping a parcel of land for generations at the whim of a noble, my family is able to pour their hard work into the acquisition of land and a home, and the security those things provide. In exchange for the individual right to ownership, each person is obliged to respect the ownership rights of others.
I am aware the folks at the patent office appear to have warm crack pipes in their possession much of the time, of late. Ownership, the privilege, is exploited by the wealthiest within the system like virtually all freedoms are. The "mine and yours" statistical model is still eminently fair as long as the poorest maintain their right to inclusion within the system.
What does it mean to be "yours?" Why hell, that I can have something that is "mine".