Extra CO2 changes the environment in adverse ways.
But say:
The scary part is speed of change [in the greenhouse effect, caused by increases in atmospheric CO2] and our the fact that our civilization may not be able to adapt to those changes due to accelerated nature of current warming cycle.
So, you feel that something that "our civilization may not be able to adapt to" is not "adverse changes in the environment".
I give up.
By the way. Get of your cycle. There are no cycles, they are simply illusions caused by the pattern matching functions of your brain. (Assuming you are not making insane errors of scale and thinking about day/night, winter/summer or glaciations).
Considering that even Nokia dropped it like a red hot coal ASAP and shipped a different design why would anyone ever contemplate it?
Maybe because Nokia dropped it like a red hot coal?
N900: Debian based, resistive screen, hardware keyboard, great for hackers, cute name "Maemo" N9: RPM based, capacitive screen, no keyboard, AEGIS!, horrid name "Meego".(*)
((*) some of this information is a lie, but it's Nokia's lie, not mine).
This idea came about because the GTA04 already exists, but only fits in the old OpenMoko case, which is nearly impossible to find.
By the coincidence of being built around the same TI devkit as the RX51 the GTA04 almost fits the N900 case, and there seem to be a hell of a lot of them around. Try finding parts for a N950!
So, a quick hack on the GTA04 board, voila, the Neo900, goes into a N900 case to get a working geekphone.
Not at all the phone that many of the people around here seem to want, but then Slashdot hasn't been for "nerds" for years.
One last try (though I'm starting to feel I'm fighting against windmills here).
1. CO2 is but one of the factors in global warming phenomenon. 2. Much bigger problem is the actually strong greenhouse gasses such as methane.
No, for the simple reason that Methane concentrations in the atmosphere are not increasing
3. Global warming is not about pollution, but a natural cyclic phenomenon. It would occur with or without extra CO2, the only difference would be speed of the process.
No. This is an unsupported assertion. Without the observed CO2 increase there is no known mechanism to explain the current warming. There are no "cycles". (Assuming that you're not so confused that you mistake long term cyclic behavior (orbital influences) for short term effects).
4. This natural phenomenon is being accelerated by many factors, one of them the increased output of CO2 by various burning processes.
What natural phenomenon?
5. CO2 pollutes nothing - in fact it's a necessary gas in the atmosphere for functioning of current ecosystem.
As you yourself have said, the mere fact that something is "natural" and "necessary" does not mean it cannot be a "pollutant". Oxygen is "natural" and "necessary" but in the wrong place, at the wrong concentrations it could be a dangerous pollutant.
6. Global warming is a natural part of ecosystem - the only problem we're having is the speed of change which is too rapid for adaptation of some species.
No. Climate change (warming or cooling) has been observed before. It is always caused by something. "Natural" is a meaningless word.
7. As a result we conclude that CO2 is a natural part of ecosystem,
"Natural" is a meaningless word.
increase in which merely acts as a catalyst for a natural process.
Meaningless bullshit.
Conclusion: it is not a pollutant. It's a greenhouse gas that accelerates a natural process.
Accelerates in the sense that in the absence of an increase of CO2 (which is entirely due to human burning of fossil fuels) there would be no warming.
Example of pollutant: SO2. Undergoes chemical reaction in the cloud layer causing rain water to turn acidic and kill plant life. Also generates severe particles that cause problems in breathing apparatus of all air-breathing mammals.
A natural chemical, produced by volcanic activity, therefore by your "definition" not a pollutant.... Blah Blah Blah.
For ideological or religious reasons you seem to be unable to reconcile the two correct ideas you have:
1. Things that are emitted by human activity that change the environment in adverse ways are pollutants.
2. Extra CO2 changes the environment in adverse ways.
3. Human activity (fossil fuel burning) emits extra CO2.... Therefore human emitted CO2 is a pollutant.
Because at concentrations in the atmosphere, it's not a pollutant. It's not harmful to us humans at all,
Well some people disagree (and, as we read on so do you!)
In fact, it's necessary for current ecology to function.
Well, hello captain Obvious.
Ecological shift itself is in no way CO2 driven, but driven by warming of the planet as a result of more thermal energy from the sun remaining inside the atmosphere.
Why is more thermal energy remaining inside the atmosphere? Oh, because of an increase in CO2 concentrations. So it is CO2 driven.
The main worry is that we may push enough CO2 into atmosphere to cause methane to escape sediment and into the atmosphere so fast that our ecosystem will not have time to adapt to changes.
Oh, so CO2 is a dangerous pollutant - if we increase the level too much:
severe harm is done to the environment through addition of these substances.
What is your problem? Do the bits of your brain not talk to each other? You seem to be holding multiple inconsistent points of view.
So if an industrial process released large amounts of oxygen into the atmosphere, you would call this a pollutant? The word play is nothing but politics.
You've heard of the Oxygen Catastrophe?
If an industrial process released enough oxygen in the atmosphere to, say, increase it's percentage to 30% then I'd certainly call it a pollutant.
It's politics to not class things as pollutants when their release into the environment is dangerous.
Yes, the NSA has allegedly quite brazenly stepped over some lines with this. But, France has multiple times been caught (and certainly been accused of) dabbling in a little state-sponsored industrial espionage against the US as well in the past.
Has France been caught bugging 400 million US phone calls in one month?
(The NSA bugged 70 million phone calls in a counry of 68 million people in one 30 day period. I know quantity has a quality of its own, but fuck.)
Slashdot Mirror
Less and less coherent.
Not worth talking to.
Bye.
Aargh. "Get off your cycle", not "get of your cycle".
So, you simultaneously disagree with my:
Extra CO2 changes the environment in adverse ways.
But say:
The scary part is speed of change [in the greenhouse effect, caused by increases in atmospheric CO2] and our the fact that our civilization may not be able to adapt to those changes due to accelerated nature of current warming cycle.
So, you feel that something that "our civilization may not be able to adapt to" is not "adverse changes in the environment".
I give up.
By the way. Get of your cycle. There are no cycles, they are simply illusions caused by the pattern matching functions of your brain. (Assuming you are not making insane errors of scale and thinking about day/night, winter/summer or glaciations).
Considering that even Nokia dropped it like a red hot coal ASAP and shipped a different design why would anyone ever contemplate it?
Maybe because Nokia dropped it like a red hot coal?
N900: Debian based, resistive screen, hardware keyboard, great for hackers, cute name "Maemo"
N9: RPM based, capacitive screen, no keyboard, AEGIS!, horrid name "Meego".(*)
((*) some of this information is a lie, but it's Nokia's lie, not mine).
The problem is the case.
This idea came about because the GTA04 already exists, but only fits in the old OpenMoko case, which is nearly impossible to find.
By the coincidence of being built around the same TI devkit as the RX51 the GTA04 almost fits the N900 case, and there seem to be a hell of a lot of them around. Try finding parts for a N950!
So, a quick hack on the GTA04 board, voila, the Neo900, goes into a N900 case to get a working geekphone.
Not at all the phone that many of the people around here seem to want, but then Slashdot hasn't been for "nerds" for years.
Then change your BTC into real money.
(BTC ? In the iso money naming that'd be Bhutan Colons).
One last try (though I'm starting to feel I'm fighting against windmills here).
1. CO2 is but one of the factors in global warming phenomenon.
2. Much bigger problem is the actually strong greenhouse gasses such as methane.
No, for the simple reason that Methane concentrations in the atmosphere are not increasing
3. Global warming is not about pollution, but a natural cyclic phenomenon. It would occur with or without extra CO2, the only difference would be speed of the process.
No. This is an unsupported assertion. Without the observed CO2 increase there is no known mechanism to explain the current warming. There are no "cycles". (Assuming that you're not so confused that you mistake long term cyclic behavior (orbital influences) for short term effects).
4. This natural phenomenon is being accelerated by many factors, one of them the increased output of CO2 by various burning processes.
What natural phenomenon?
5. CO2 pollutes nothing - in fact it's a necessary gas in the atmosphere for functioning of current ecosystem.
As you yourself have said, the mere fact that something is "natural" and "necessary" does not mean it cannot be a "pollutant". Oxygen is "natural" and "necessary" but in the wrong place, at the wrong concentrations it could be a dangerous pollutant.
6. Global warming is a natural part of ecosystem - the only problem we're having is the speed of change which is too rapid for adaptation of some species.
No. Climate change (warming or cooling) has been observed before. It is always caused by something. "Natural" is a meaningless word.
7. As a result we conclude that CO2 is a natural part of ecosystem,
"Natural" is a meaningless word.
increase in which merely acts as a catalyst for a natural process.
Meaningless bullshit.
Conclusion: it is not a pollutant. It's a greenhouse gas that accelerates a natural process.
Accelerates in the sense that in the absence of an increase of CO2 (which is entirely due to human burning of fossil fuels) there would be no warming.
Example of pollutant:
SO2. Undergoes chemical reaction in the cloud layer causing rain water to turn acidic and kill plant life. Also generates severe particles that cause problems in breathing apparatus of all air-breathing mammals.
A natural chemical, produced by volcanic activity, therefore by your "definition" not a pollutant. ...
Blah Blah Blah.
For ideological or religious reasons you seem to be unable to reconcile the two correct ideas you have:
1. Things that are emitted by human activity that change the environment in adverse ways are pollutants.
2. Extra CO2 changes the environment in adverse ways.
3. Human activity (fossil fuel burning) emits extra CO2. ... Therefore human emitted CO2 is a pollutant.
Which of these statements do you disagree with?
Because at concentrations in the atmosphere, it's not a pollutant. It's not harmful to us humans at all,
Well some people disagree (and, as we read on so do you!)
In fact, it's necessary for current ecology to function.
Well, hello captain Obvious.
Ecological shift itself is in no way CO2 driven, but driven by warming of the planet as a result of more thermal energy from the sun remaining inside the atmosphere.
Why is more thermal energy remaining inside the atmosphere? Oh, because of an increase in CO2 concentrations. So it is CO2 driven.
The main worry is that we may push enough CO2 into atmosphere to cause methane to escape sediment and into the atmosphere so fast that our ecosystem will not have time to adapt to changes.
Oh, so CO2 is a dangerous pollutant - if we increase the level too much:
severe harm is done to the environment through addition of these substances.
What is your problem? Do the bits of your brain not talk to each other? You seem to be holding multiple inconsistent points of view.
Then, why did you say:
CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a greenhouse gas. Mixing these two shows extreme amount of ignorance on the topic.
So CO2 is, in sufficient quantity, a pollutant.
Splendid. And pollution is the condition where the environment contains pollutants.
So if an industrial process released large amounts of oxygen into the atmosphere, you would call this a pollutant? The word play is nothing but politics.
You've heard of the Oxygen Catastrophe?
If an industrial process released enough oxygen in the atmosphere to, say, increase it's percentage to 30% then I'd certainly call it a pollutant.
It's politics to not class things as pollutants when their release into the environment is dangerous.
What a bizzare distinction to make.
A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.
You have a better definition?
modern coal doesn't even pollute.
Rubbish, as you yourself point out later:
If it weren't for CO2 problem
Doesn't work from the ground (IR is strongly scattered and absorbed by water vapor),
Now you've done it, all the "skeptics" will be mad at you.
The number of guards and other inmates killed by lifers far outweigh the few innocent suspects killed by the system.
So, can you tell us what those numbers are?
Or are you just making this shit up?
You're Americans. Why don't you use your traditional methods? Move 'em from prison to an office or school and then shoot 'em with AR15's.
Alternatively, drone strikes.
If you look at the French case it's pretty clear that some people who work for the NSA have been in France.
Some of them are probably still here.
These people, especialy if they are French citizens, should be arrested as soon as possible.
Why should the US share data with Europe, if Europe closes TFTP? That's my point (albeit perhaps not particularly well made.)
Your reply is based on the unsupported assertion that the US currently "shares" data with Europe.
Of course, MEPs aren't really -accountable- to anyone for their decisions,
What are you wittering on about?
The elections are next year.
What more accountability do you want?
Don't forget jealousy.
So the US thinks the EU is sleeping around, eh.
But anyway, I hear the European "union" is not a happy one.
Oh take your concern trolling and stuff it up your arse.
(Helmut Kohl wanted to reduce the number of Turkish gastarbeiter? Wow, up to date news).
So you wouldn't mind one of your friends tapping your phones?
I hear that is known to happen inside families: husband-wife, parents-children, sibling-sibling.
Yes, this kind of thing often happens before a divorce or a touch of marital violence.
Yes, the NSA has allegedly quite brazenly stepped over some lines with this. But, France has multiple times been caught (and certainly been accused of) dabbling in a little state-sponsored industrial espionage against the US as well in the past.
Has France been caught bugging 400 million US phone calls in one month?
(The NSA bugged 70 million phone calls in a counry of 68 million people in one 30 day period. I know quantity has a quality of its own, but fuck.)
Or France for the sake of cheap connectivity bought massive amounts of "US" back door telco kit
More or less the other way round - Bell became Lucent and got bought by Alcatel.
I.E. Most Americal telco stuff is made by a French company.
Maybe a French company riddled with American moles?
Anyway, I can't see how this was done from outside France. Heads must roll.
Mod parent up for asking the big question noone is asking.
How did they do it.
Who helped them.