If you just want to avoid the poor bank exchange rate, the stability of bitcoin isn't a problem. Instead of accepting dollars, and trading them for pesos, you now accept bitcoin and trade them for pesos.
We've got a lot of problems on planet Earth, but runaway population growth isn't going to be one of them
Give it some time. Evolution needs to catch up to our new lifestyles. Even if the average couple has 1.8 children, you can find families with 4 children, and families with 0. All the families with 0 children will not pass their genes, and families with 4 children will pass 4 copies. Any genetic influence on higher number of children grows exponentially.
Keep in mind that the mining started with the really good anthracite coal, and has been moved steadily to lesser and lesser grades, with less energy per ton. If you look at the produced energy from coal, the US hit the peak back in 1998.
We buy most of our oil, from ourselves
This tertiary oil boom in the US, due to fracking, is a very temporary stopgap. Fracked wells have an incredibly steep decline rate, which means that after just a few years, the well stops producing in useful quantities, and you have to drill new ones. Pretty soon, they're going to run out of places to drill, especially the really good places where they started. The story for natural gas is similar.
So what is an acceptable probability (cost/benefit wise) for a loss of one life?
Compare to other things we do. How much money do you spend on swimming lessons, cancer preventions, seat belts, traffic lights, levees, hurricane shelters, and so on ?
Satellites do not show that, and they are more accurate SCIENTIFICALLY.
On the contrary, measuring surface temperature from a satellite is notoriously hard, and requires a great deal of manipulation and modelling to produce a useful result.
In Chapter 12 Figure 12.5 they project temperatures out to 2300 and Secnario 2.6 and the low end of Scenario 4.5 are both under 2C increases by 2300
Those figures are relative to the 1986–2005 base period. When people talk about limiting temperature rise to 2C, they are using the pre-industrial temperature as a baseline, which is about 0.8C lower.
What exactly is wrong with that? You both made a decision to have sex, knowing that contraception is not 100% reliable and that the other person could be lying, and decided to chance it. The result is that you created a baby, and you are held responsible for your actions.
What if the condom worked reliably, but while the guy was in the bathroom, she recovered the condom from the garbage bin, and impregnated herself ?
So, the issue with those eggs set aside is child support. If she signs something to the effect that he's not on the hook for any of the child support... I'd see no reason for him to care one way or the other.
Well, when the children grow up, they may want to meet their biological father. He may not be interested in that. It has the potential to cause some emotional harm to one or more people involved.
Slashdot Mirror
you can retire if you save anything, because deflationary currency becomes an asset. But that doesn't bode well for the rich n powerful,
Why not ? They'll hoard more than everybody else, while the poor man is forced to trade his savings for food.
If you just want to avoid the poor bank exchange rate, the stability of bitcoin isn't a problem. Instead of accepting dollars, and trading them for pesos, you now accept bitcoin and trade them for pesos.
So, basically you're saying that Apple is wrong to call blood red.
I'm not convinced.
But IMHO the effort to cheat a "dumb AI" should be similar to or harder than actually writing a text in the first place
Maybe somebody can write a program to cheat. Try random sentences and feed them into a copy of the AI until you get a good grade.
We've got a lot of problems on planet Earth, but runaway population growth isn't going to be one of them
Give it some time. Evolution needs to catch up to our new lifestyles. Even if the average couple has 1.8 children, you can find families with 4 children, and families with 0. All the families with 0 children will not pass their genes, and families with 4 children will pass 4 copies. Any genetic influence on higher number of children grows exponentially.
Personal experience of an author trying to publish something going against established opinion:
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
The US has coal reserves for hundreds of years
Keep in mind that the mining started with the really good anthracite coal, and has been moved steadily to lesser and lesser grades, with less energy per ton. If you look at the produced energy from coal, the US hit the peak back in 1998.
We buy most of our oil, from ourselves
This tertiary oil boom in the US, due to fracking, is a very temporary stopgap. Fracked wells have an incredibly steep decline rate, which means that after just a few years, the well stops producing in useful quantities, and you have to drill new ones. Pretty soon, they're going to run out of places to drill, especially the really good places where they started. The story for natural gas is similar.
There is plenty of evidence that if the CO2 levels increased the world's deserts would recede
Feel free to cite it.
NASA admits the warming since 1998 is NOT statically significant
You're the one who's cherry picking, because 1998 was a 2-sigma outlier when it happened. The same 1998 temperature is now the norm.
Yes, that's the definition. it plots future temperature with respect to 1986-2005 out until the year 2300
But using that same definition, the average pre-industrial temperature was -0.8C.
So, if we want to limit warming to pre-industrial + 2C, we should limit it to +1.2C in that graph.
So what is an acceptable probability (cost/benefit wise) for a loss of one life?
Compare to other things we do. How much money do you spend on swimming lessons, cancer preventions, seat belts, traffic lights, levees, hurricane shelters, and so on ?
In that chapter, they are talking about temperature anomalies with respect to 1986-2005 average. That applies to the entire graph, from now to 2300.
Satellites do not show that, and they are more accurate SCIENTIFICALLY.
On the contrary, measuring surface temperature from a satellite is notoriously hard, and requires a great deal of manipulation and modelling to produce a useful result.
As far as the warming trend stopping or slowing down.... it didn't:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...
I'm not qualified. But you could start with the IPCC report.
Actually, the Big Bang theory was proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest.
In Chapter 12 Figure 12.5 they project temperatures out to 2300 and Secnario 2.6 and the low end of Scenario 4.5 are both under 2C increases by 2300
Those figures are relative to the 1986–2005 base period. When people talk about limiting temperature rise to 2C, they are using the pre-industrial temperature as a baseline, which is about 0.8C lower.
When lives are at stake you mostly plan for the worst case scenario, unless you are a cynic of course.
No, you would look at all the possibilities, assign probabilities to them, and do a cost/benefit analysis for each of them. Then you optimize.
Of course the Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age, that's why we call it the Ice Age. duh...
That phase ended about 8000 years ago.
I agree that a religious figure has no business opining on science issues
The pope doesn't opine on science issues. He takes it for a scientific fact, which is perfectly reasonable.
The pope opines on how people can improve their lifestyles so as to minimize the climate impact.
What exactly is wrong with that? You both made a decision to have sex, knowing that contraception is not 100% reliable and that the other person could be lying, and decided to chance it. The result is that you created a baby, and you are held responsible for your actions.
What if the condom worked reliably, but while the guy was in the bathroom, she recovered the condom from the garbage bin, and impregnated herself ?
I am generally supportive of abortion, but I disagree with you.
Ovum is even worse, because it only refers to a single egg, but the pre-embryo has already started to divide.
simple, no?
No, otherwise everybody would be agreeing with you.
She can do as she pleases with it
As long as the state can force the father to pay child care, I would argue that the father has some say in the matter.
It's her body and no one else's
The egg only has 50% of her DNA, so it's not her body.
So, the issue with those eggs set aside is child support. If she signs something to the effect that he's not on the hook for any of the child support... I'd see no reason for him to care one way or the other.
Well, when the children grow up, they may want to meet their biological father. He may not be interested in that. It has the potential to cause some emotional harm to one or more people involved.