It seems to me that female suicide bombers are just women refusing to get honor-killed : they are going to die anyway, but if they die through honor killing, their kids get killed as well. If they die (attempting to) committing genocide on Jews, they are merely imitating the prophet.
Actually... it kinda does imply that time does not go back further than a certain moment. I'll grant you it's not entirely proven, but it does imply very strongly that there was no moment in time 14 billion years ago. It just doesn't exist according to the big bang. Like the easter bunny.
I do wonder what's wrong with it. Obviously people will be tempted by money to do this type of things (and much, much worse).
You should trust a blogger not to do these things, and immediately remove the ones you know that did do it.
The solution is NOT to try and take away the temptation of the money. The solution is to ASK them to reject it, and if possible use your own 2c of reading eyes to prevent them from doing it.
Then why can't we say that the universe always existed?
How about because observation clearly shows that it had a beginning ?
It always amazes me how people who claim the universe doesn't have a beginning in order to deny God "believe" (because that's what it is) in the big bang theory that states that the universe DID have a beginning.
Am I the only one seeing a problem with this attitude ? Probably...
You're making the assumption that everybody would recognize a miracle for what it is, truly miraculous. Which is not the case. Weather balloons are regularly mistaken for "miracle UFO's". And let's not discuss how much you have to believe in miracles if you actually believe they're extraterrestrials.
Second, even a true miracle would not be noticed. A few months ago a plane landed with half of one wing broken of on Tokyo Internaional Airport. That's a very illogical thing for a plane to do. Now I don't say it was a miracle or not, but every simulation of a boeing 727 trying to land like that ends in flames. This one ended without a hitch. It certainly has all the properties that you'd require of a miracle : events take a radically different turn than our theories predicted they would.
You see you assume fallibility on the part of God, and you give his infallibility to yourself. It's a stupid argument, for you will make mistakes either way. There are things that defineately are not miracles that you'd recognize as miracles, and there are miracles that you don't recognize as miracles. I'm not saying they happened. I'm just saying that *if* they happened you'd be fooled.
Now I'm not telling you what to believe or to disbelieve, feel free to do as you please. I'm just saying you're reason for disbelieving is as much bullshit (and seriously arrogant, for assuming you yourself will never make mistakes in recognizing something as a miracle) as the argument that God does exist.
It seems made for an environment like this : a fixed network installation. It may not beat this in throughput, but it would seem to me to be way cheaper.
Re:Sunshine and the Public Commons
on
Vertical Farming
·
· Score: 1
The choice is not wether sunshine is good or bad. You're confusing the issue. The issue is much more blatant : which do you prefer : sunshine or electricity. Choosing sunshine implies killing of part of the population, because we can't feed more than people, and is probably at best 10 billion.
Because that's the choice the world presents us with. Nothing can change this choice that the world forces on us. We only have to choose.
plant efficiency in capturing sunlight : 2% (and that's CAPTURING, right, that's not the amount that gets converted into food, most is used to capture co2 in the leaves, and a lot is used in the roots capturing the "speciality" elements (iron, nitrogen,...), which is not a free operation, in fact most capturing is *very* expensive "active transport" stuff)
A slight solar panel converts about 10% of the energy of the sun. Expensive ones can go up to 40%. So we'd be covered for quite a few levels. (even if not 5 levels as you'd have to factor in energy storage, and generating the correct frequency of light,... obviously, you'd simply shine the exact shade of green the plants assimilate, so that the leaves would look entirely black, but that makes ugly pictures.
So we'll probably do something else : forget about the whole plants shit and find a way to convert co2 into, say, sugar or oil using electricity. We're basically going to need a replicator.
I wonder if there is any truth to the claim that islam demands muslims kill to conquer Israel. Hamas certainly does (have you read their charter ? It sounds a (lot) worse than mein kampf, and it makes constant reference to the quran and something called the hadith.
Regardless of this, I think this Kaplan guy should just be left alone. Perhaps he has a point. Perhaps not. He certainly has the right to raise his voice.
He was convicted for using a large-scale ad-hominem attack against a journalist he didn't like... and you ask why he's wining ?
You're kidding right ? Wining without substance is all this idiot knows how to do. That's why he was convicted in the first place.
(hmmm Kaplan seems to be a pretty right-wing blogger. That explains why a leftist nut felt entitled to attack him. Kaplan doesn't seem overly extreme though)
Just because someone's poor doesn't mean he gets to commit crimes.
You can't personally attack people in print without a solid basis of fact. That seems to be a *good* law. I applaud mr. Kaplan for excercising his rights, and I feel no sympathy for someone who was obviously just making a large ad-hominem attack.
You're saying this to a slashdot crowd. Who is under the mistaken impression that we can force the entire world to comply with massive expensive investment that may or may not be futile (in fact the "scientific consensus" according to the U.N. is that we can't).
And we're talking about China here. They're essentially reasonable people, they're a bit caught up in a disfunctional ideology, but at least they're reasonable.
Then you have Iran. And the oil nations (I'll be kind and not point to a certain religion that just really really seems to have something to do with what is happening there). They'll be real glad that we decide that their only export product is bad. They're known for being very cooperative with their own populations, so they'll listen to us, right ? Oh publicly beheading dissidents you say ? Euhm well I'm sure they'll be reasonable, after all our own religious nuts are reasonable, right ? Bombing abortion clinics you say ? Well euhm...
Furthermore. Climate models currently have (at best) 20% error margin PER YEAR. That means that we can predict what global warming is going to do next year, but after that the error is bigger than the measurement. After 5 years there is no signal left.
Furthermore the cost of these adjustments. These costs are absent from all discussions and are non-trivial to say the least. Replacing all non-nuclear power plants (and all nuclear plants according to most "discussions" about this topic). Alternative fuels basically require us to replace every car, truck, and generator in the developed (and the developing) world. Dozens of power plants, mostly based upon unproven technology (and that's being nice), that has very non-trivial problems are to replace what is currently the backbone of power generation. And then there's the real petroleum industry... plastics. It means redesigning EVERY plastic product. And I mean every last one.
So, really 1) are we causing global warming ? Good question, we're not actually sure, and we don't understand the mechanism behind it (if so, please point to an accurate climate model, we can maybe tolerate 1% error margin, but certainly no more than that) 2) if we are causing it can we help it ? Provided our current (20% off per year) guess of the mechanism is correct, we can't stop it. We may be able to lower some of the very long term effects (although this can't be confirmed since we can't reliably predict what will happen in 5 years, so predictions about stuff happening in 100 years should be taken with an ocean of salt) 3) even if there is a method to stop it, what is the cost ? Probably it more than the economy produces in a single year, and that is, just too high, maybe by amortizing the costs over 20-30 years we can do this. But not faster than that, and even over 20-30 years it means taking big risks
Plants suck (unbelieveably badly) at efficiency themselves. The best plants use about 2% of solar power. Of that power, only 15-20% is used for actual sugar construction (transport, water, active transport in roots being the main things).
Then our harvesting processes are not exactly hallmarks of efficiency themselves. But let's say we actually get 70% of the biomatter into the factory.
Then the factory processes it at about... say 20% efficiency ? I would be extremely surprised if they got it this high...
So using plants gives us about 2%*20%*70%*20% = 1/1785 th of the sunlight hitting the plants.
Even the cheapest solar panels get about 10% efficiency. Therefore wouldn't it make more sense to try to find a process that can create sugars (and/or plastic/oil/...) from athmospheric co2, or from ground-based compounds. If we can only make the process 1% efficient we'd still easily be two hundred times more efficient than plants.
I think, and I feel just about the entirety of history agrees with me on this, that the invasion of poland was about the conflicting ideologies of nazism and communism.
Doesn't it bother you to be a revisionist ? I mean you cannot seriously think that you're right... I've yet to see oil mentioned anywhere in the reasons for Germany's attacks. The reason for their attacks was their supremacist and totalitarian ideology.
I suppose you're going to say that the cold war was also about oil.
As you said, they could, if necessary do without oil. And yet you keep saying this.
Same with Japan. They did not join the war to get access to oil. That's bullshit.
Oh yeah the world would have been *so* much better if USA did not block indonesia. *cough*
You ARE a white german speaking aryan or a japanese heterosexual non-cripple, right ? Just to check your sanity, and to remind you that it was *not* about oil.
Yes at one point in the war the supply routes of the armies were an issue. This does *not* mean the war was about oil.
A post is not insightful because it agrees with your political belief. Neither oil, nor bush is responsible for all evil in the world. Neither of these 2 have ever touched Sudan more than a tiny bit, so I won't go as far as to say that the exact opposite is the case, but clearly there's at least more than one factor involved here.
Maybe oil is involved, maybe... I don't really think so actually. It's just too little oil to realistically matter.
Of course, realism is something you're not worried about, right ?
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder why the democrats (and "the left" in general) support killing these women ... I truly do. Anyone know ?
It seems to me that female suicide bombers are just women refusing to get honor-killed : they are going to die anyway, but if they die through honor killing, their kids get killed as well. If they die (attempting to) committing genocide on Jews, they are merely imitating the prophet.
Actually ... it kinda does imply that time does not go back further than a certain moment. I'll grant you it's not entirely proven, but it does imply very strongly that there was no moment in time 14 billion years ago. It just doesn't exist according to the big bang. Like the easter bunny.
I do wonder what's wrong with it. Obviously people will be tempted by money to do this type of things (and much, much worse).
You should trust a blogger not to do these things, and immediately remove the ones you know that did do it.
The solution is NOT to try and take away the temptation of the money. The solution is to ASK them to reject it, and if possible use your own 2c of reading eyes to prevent them from doing it.
How about because observation clearly shows that it had a beginning ?
It always amazes me how people who claim the universe doesn't have a beginning in order to deny God "believe" (because that's what it is) in the big bang theory that states that the universe DID have a beginning.
Am I the only one seeing a problem with this attitude ? Probably
You're making the assumption that everybody would recognize a miracle for what it is, truly miraculous. Which is not the case. Weather balloons are regularly mistaken for "miracle UFO's". And let's not discuss how much you have to believe in miracles if you actually believe they're extraterrestrials.
Second, even a true miracle would not be noticed. A few months ago a plane landed with half of one wing broken of on Tokyo Internaional Airport. That's a very illogical thing for a plane to do. Now I don't say it was a miracle or not, but every simulation of a boeing 727 trying to land like that ends in flames. This one ended without a hitch. It certainly has all the properties that you'd require of a miracle : events take a radically different turn than our theories predicted they would.
You see you assume fallibility on the part of God, and you give his infallibility to yourself. It's a stupid argument, for you will make mistakes either way. There are things that defineately are not miracles that you'd recognize as miracles, and there are miracles that you don't recognize as miracles. I'm not saying they happened. I'm just saying that *if* they happened you'd be fooled.
Now I'm not telling you what to believe or to disbelieve, feel free to do as you please. I'm just saying you're reason for disbelieving is as much bullshit (and seriously arrogant, for assuming you yourself will never make mistakes in recognizing something as a miracle) as the argument that God does exist.
And then there's also politicians that tend to work a lot faster.
My brother is doing WAY better in college than me.
It seems made for an environment like this : a fixed network installation. It may not beat this in throughput, but it would seem to me to be way cheaper.
And they go straight to the next bleeding edge : 248 mbit.
_ Amendments
They have nearly filled the alphabet btw. Only 802.11z is still free as a name. Can you name them all ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11n#Standard_and
The choice is not wether sunshine is good or bad. You're confusing the issue. The issue is much more blatant : which do you prefer : sunshine or electricity. Choosing sunshine implies killing of part of the population, because we can't feed more than people, and is probably at best 10 billion.
Because that's the choice the world presents us with. Nothing can change this choice that the world forces on us. We only have to choose.
I agree with you that this farm is a bad idea. It won't work. But it would be possible, if stupid, to cover multiple levels.
I'd much prefer electricity to sunshine. Sunshine sucks, especially in the morning, electricity rocks, and delivers porn.
Maybe a bit crude for an argument. But still, I think it's gonna apply to 90% of the population.
Besides it's not like we won't leave a number of public parks open.
The exact same argument can be made for solar panels.
*ahem*
...), which is not a free operation, in fact most capturing is *very* expensive "active transport" stuff)
... obviously, you'd simply shine the exact shade of green the plants assimilate, so that the leaves would look entirely black, but that makes ugly pictures.
plant efficiency in capturing sunlight : 2% (and that's CAPTURING, right, that's not the amount that gets converted into food, most is used to capture co2 in the leaves, and a lot is used in the roots capturing the "speciality" elements (iron, nitrogen,
A slight solar panel converts about 10% of the energy of the sun. Expensive ones can go up to 40%. So we'd be covered for quite a few levels. (even if not 5 levels as you'd have to factor in energy storage, and generating the correct frequency of light,
So we'll probably do something else : forget about the whole plants shit and find a way to convert co2 into, say, sugar or oil using electricity. We're basically going to need a replicator.
I know that, but Christians don't force themselves violently upon others.
... and Pakistan ), Azerbeidjan, Armenia, Sudan, and others.
Muslims do. And it's not just Israel I see. It's Israel, Egypt, India, (
They need to be stopped. Christians are (currently ?) not very danguerous at all. Just much easier to attack.
I wonder if there is any truth to the claim that islam demands muslims kill to conquer Israel. Hamas certainly does (have you read their charter ? It sounds a (lot) worse than mein kampf, and it makes constant reference to the quran and something called the hadith.
Regardless of this, I think this Kaplan guy should just be left alone. Perhaps he has a point. Perhaps not. He certainly has the right to raise his voice.
He was convicted for using a large-scale ad-hominem attack against a journalist he didn't like ... and you ask why he's wining ?
You're kidding right ? Wining without substance is all this idiot knows how to do. That's why he was convicted in the first place.
(hmmm Kaplan seems to be a pretty right-wing blogger. That explains why a leftist nut felt entitled to attack him. Kaplan doesn't seem overly extreme though)
Just because someone's poor doesn't mean he gets to commit crimes.
You can't personally attack people in print without a solid basis of fact. That seems to be a *good* law. I applaud mr. Kaplan for excercising his rights, and I feel no sympathy for someone who was obviously just making a large ad-hominem attack.
What was the content they argued about anyway ?
You're saying this to a slashdot crowd. Who is under the mistaken impression that we can force the entire world to comply with massive expensive investment that may or may not be futile (in fact the "scientific consensus" according to the U.N. is that we can't).
...
... plastics. It means redesigning EVERY plastic product. And I mean every last one.
And we're talking about China here. They're essentially reasonable people, they're a bit caught up in a disfunctional ideology, but at least they're reasonable.
Then you have Iran. And the oil nations (I'll be kind and not point to a certain religion that just really really seems to have something to do with what is happening there). They'll be real glad that we decide that their only export product is bad. They're known for being very cooperative with their own populations, so they'll listen to us, right ? Oh publicly beheading dissidents you say ? Euhm well I'm sure they'll be reasonable, after all our own religious nuts are reasonable, right ? Bombing abortion clinics you say ? Well euhm
Furthermore. Climate models currently have (at best) 20% error margin PER YEAR. That means that we can predict what global warming is going to do next year, but after that the error is bigger than the measurement. After 5 years there is no signal left.
Furthermore the cost of these adjustments. These costs are absent from all discussions and are non-trivial to say the least. Replacing all non-nuclear power plants (and all nuclear plants according to most "discussions" about this topic). Alternative fuels basically require us to replace every car, truck, and generator in the developed (and the developing) world. Dozens of power plants, mostly based upon unproven technology (and that's being nice), that has very non-trivial problems are to replace what is currently the backbone of power generation. And then there's the real petroleum industry
So, really
1) are we causing global warming ? Good question, we're not actually sure, and we don't understand the mechanism behind it (if so, please point to an accurate climate model, we can maybe tolerate 1% error margin, but certainly no more than that)
2) if we are causing it can we help it ? Provided our current (20% off per year) guess of the mechanism is correct, we can't stop it. We may be able to lower some of the very long term effects (although this can't be confirmed since we can't reliably predict what will happen in 5 years, so predictions about stuff happening in 100 years should be taken with an ocean of salt)
3) even if there is a method to stop it, what is the cost ? Probably it more than the economy produces in a single year, and that is, just too high, maybe by amortizing the costs over 20-30 years we can do this. But not faster than that, and even over 20-30 years it means taking big risks
Plants suck (unbelieveably badly) at efficiency themselves. The best plants use about 2% of solar power. Of that power, only 15-20% is used for actual sugar construction (transport, water, active transport in roots being the main things).
... say 20% efficiency ? I would be extremely surprised if they got it this high ...
Then our harvesting processes are not exactly hallmarks of efficiency themselves. But let's say we actually get 70% of the biomatter into the factory.
Then the factory processes it at about
So using plants gives us about 2%*20%*70%*20% = 1/1785 th of the sunlight hitting the plants.
Even the cheapest solar panels get about 10% efficiency. Therefore wouldn't it make more sense to try to find a process that can create sugars (and/or plastic/oil/...) from athmospheric co2, or from ground-based compounds. If we can only make the process 1% efficient we'd still easily be two hundred times more efficient than plants.
I think, and I feel just about the entirety of history agrees with me on this, that the invasion of poland was about the conflicting ideologies of nazism and communism.
And you know as well as I do that that is true.
Doesn't it bother you to be a revisionist ? I mean you cannot seriously think that you're right ... I've yet to see oil mentioned anywhere in the reasons for Germany's attacks. The reason for their attacks was their supremacist and totalitarian ideology.
I suppose you're going to say that the cold war was also about oil.
As you said, they could, if necessary do without oil. And yet you keep saying this.
Same with Japan. They did not join the war to get access to oil. That's bullshit.
Oh yeah the world would have been *so* much better if USA did not block indonesia. *cough*
You ARE a white german speaking aryan or a japanese heterosexual non-cripple, right ? Just to check your sanity, and to remind you that it was *not* about oil.
Yes at one point in the war the supply routes of the armies were an issue. This does *not* mean the war was about oil.
A post is not insightful because it agrees with your political belief. Neither oil, nor bush is responsible for all evil in the world. Neither of these 2 have ever touched Sudan more than a tiny bit, so I won't go as far as to say that the exact opposite is the case, but clearly there's at least more than one factor involved here.
... I don't really think so actually. It's just too little oil to realistically matter.
Maybe oil is involved, maybe
Of course, realism is something you're not worried about, right ?