The implication is that we may someday be "without insect pollinators". We won't. It's hype - hyperbole - an exaggeration for effect -- to imply a future condition "without insect pollinators". Perhaps that's not what the scientist intended, but now the words have been quoted and re-quoted in a different context.
People who grow "fruits, nuts, seeds, and oils" know what they are doing. If they need insect pollinators, they'll make sure they have insect pollinators in the right quantity, with the right pollinating ability, to make their crop a success.
If the pesticides are a problem, let's address it. There's no need to pretend we're in for a future "without insect pollination". If this phenomenon is a real problem that can be demonstrated, then why hype it up? Why exaggerate?
Farmers know how to grow food. If some problem threatens their ability to grow food, they'll find a solution to the problem.
It's only "too big an undertaking" and "not worth it" if you do it in one huge project that rolls out all at once. If you decide on an end goal and work toward it in small increments, these arguments don't really hold up. It's harder to add UI improvements to an in-place system, but it's a lot less risky.
Also, many red light camera tickets are for right turns. Accidents caused by people turning right at red lights are very rare -- and serious accidents from this are even more rare.
The computer doesn't lie about the speeding. People are afraid of these traps exactly because they work so well. (and they drive like a-holes)
When the sign says "Speed limit 25 when children are present" then it's not speeding to go 30 when no children are present. People are afraid of these traps because they don't want their money stolen from them by government thugs under the pretense of "safety".
All of the people who refuse to live near someone with different politics should really just band together and live in a compound anyway. If the walls are thick enough, they'll keep the strange ideas out -- for a while at least. They can have nightly groupthink rallies in the common areas to reinforce the political orthodoxy.
Plus you can't even eat lunch at the local diner without Presidential candidates coming and sitting at your table and talking to you about your corn harvest.
I'm not a Texan. But I'm not prejudiced against Texans either. If anti-Texan bigotry is the main "problem" people have with Austin, then they should just say so. Then people could decide to value or discount the advice they're reading without having to decode all the innuendo and double-talk
In what way? San Francisco has water on all sides, lots of local impediments to development including almost no vacant land, a high demand for housing, and rising local wealth -- everything that causes extremely high housing prices. Last time I checked, Austin (and the local Austin area) doesn't have most of these.
Protecting us from the scourge of fantasy sports. Gambling exploits people, so only government gambling that supports government payrolls should be allowed.
It's sad because people would like to be able to use these services without having to worry about whether their data is capped. And the companies would like to offer this service to those people without having to haggle over caps. And both the company and the customers are able to agree on a price. But the service can't be offered this way, because of a very small number of very high data users. So 95+% of people get something worse because of a tiny minority. Sad.
Slashdot Mirror
The implication is that we may someday be "without insect pollinators". We won't. It's hype - hyperbole - an exaggeration for effect -- to imply a future condition "without insect pollinators". Perhaps that's not what the scientist intended, but now the words have been quoted and re-quoted in a different context.
People who grow "fruits, nuts, seeds, and oils" know what they are doing. If they need insect pollinators, they'll make sure they have insect pollinators in the right quantity, with the right pollinating ability, to make their crop a success.
If the pesticides are a problem, let's address it. There's no need to pretend we're in for a future "without insect pollination". If this phenomenon is a real problem that can be demonstrated, then why hype it up? Why exaggerate?
Farmers know how to grow food. If some problem threatens their ability to grow food, they'll find a solution to the problem.
It's only "too big an undertaking" and "not worth it" if you do it in one huge project that rolls out all at once. If you decide on an end goal and work toward it in small increments, these arguments don't really hold up. It's harder to add UI improvements to an in-place system, but it's a lot less risky.
Also, many red light camera tickets are for right turns. Accidents caused by people turning right at red lights are very rare -- and serious accidents from this are even more rare.
The computer doesn't lie about the speeding. People are afraid of these traps exactly because they work so well. (and they drive like a-holes)
When the sign says "Speed limit 25 when children are present" then it's not speeding to go 30 when no children are present. People are afraid of these traps because they don't want their money stolen from them by government thugs under the pretense of "safety".
This seems ok. How will children be hurt by this? Or taxpayers? Or anyone? What's the problem?
Do we really always have to complain about everything?
They realized that promoting grievances is a route to exercise unearned power over others. They "enjoy" it when it succeeds.
Occasionally. Remember this post when it's rainy and 44 degrees on Memorial Day.
Got any examples of these oppressive laws? Were you denied the right to spend money you didn't earn or something?
All of the people who refuse to live near someone with different politics should really just band together and live in a compound anyway. If the walls are thick enough, they'll keep the strange ideas out -- for a while at least. They can have nightly groupthink rallies in the common areas to reinforce the political orthodoxy.
Plus you can't even eat lunch at the local diner without Presidential candidates coming and sitting at your table and talking to you about your corn harvest.
Just to clear the sky?
Stay because your car won't start all winter.
Which starts in October and ends in May.
I'm not a Texan. But I'm not prejudiced against Texans either. If anti-Texan bigotry is the main "problem" people have with Austin, then they should just say so. Then people could decide to value or discount the advice they're reading without having to decode all the innuendo and double-talk
I hate it when the football police drag me out of my house, handcuff me to the bleacher seats, and force me to watch high school football games.
In what way? San Francisco has water on all sides, lots of local impediments to development including almost no vacant land, a high demand for housing, and rising local wealth -- everything that causes extremely high housing prices. Last time I checked, Austin (and the local Austin area) doesn't have most of these.
And that's bad because ...?
What's wrong with Austin? Did something change in the last 2 years? Did Austin suddenly become coastal-California-level expensive?
Because law enforcement personnel sometimes face consequences when they do something illegal?
What percentage of lottery players wins most of the lottery money?
Protecting us from the scourge of fantasy sports. Gambling exploits people, so only government gambling that supports government payrolls should be allowed.
... but you got all sad and called for people to get screwed over because of your sadness.
I didn't "call for" anything. I advocated no action whatsoever. I described the situation. That's all.
All it takes is QoS tiers. The more data you use the lower QoS you get.
Network neutrality.
Blame is beside the point.
It's sad because people would like to be able to use these services without having to worry about whether their data is capped. And the companies would like to offer this service to those people without having to haggle over caps. And both the company and the customers are able to agree on a price. But the service can't be offered this way, because of a very small number of very high data users. So 95+% of people get something worse because of a tiny minority. Sad.
Because then you have to spend lots of time explaining to grandma how much 1TB is. And then your competitor sets his limit at 2TB.