> How about real trees instead, try to get some deserts back to being green.
There would be trees there now if they could grow there.
> And just getting charcoal down into the subsurface soil area in general, plowing the > extra carbon into the soil in the form of charcoalized biomass. Build up the soil tilth > all over and we won't have to use as much fossil fuel fertilizers.
Good idea, but soil organics are not a substitute for the minerals that plants require ("fertilizer"). Green plants do not utilize organic material at all. Also, moldboard plowing, which is what you are suggesting, is currently frowned upon. We are supposed to leave all the trash on the surface for erosion control.
BTW nitrogen (in the form of ammonia or nitrate) is the only "fossil fuel" fertilizer, and it could be manufactured just as easily using nuclear power.
> The other thing is that that no matter how many trees you plant, it still takes years > before they are able to take up significant amounts of C02...
Don't plant trees at all. Plant one (or several) of the many crops that remove CO2 at a much higher tons/acre-year rate than trees do and start doing so immediately.
>...where as one of these does so immediately.
No. It only does so after at least ten years of political wrangling, contract negotiations, R&D, and manufacturing (assuming everything goes smoothly and there are no nimby lawsuits).
> Oh, and stop cutting down the ones that are already there.
You need to cut them down and bury them. Otherwise after a while your forest reaches a steady state where decay releases CO2 as fast as the the trees sequester it.
> It would make a lot more sense to use real trees.
It would make sense to use real plants, but not necessarily trees. Just grow crops and bury them. This has a major drawback, though: it does not involve a multi-year multi-billion dollar Federal "program". It could be implemented immediately with existing technology and resources.
...but has the copyright owner confirmed that this was not done with permission? I doubt that it was, but you really should make sure before making accusations of copyright infringement. After all, enforcement is entirely up to the copyright owner.
One can also meet the scientific and technical training requirement by qualifying under Category B[27] or Category C. Category B provides four distinct qualification options. Where each option sets a requisite number of semester hours in physics, biology, chemistry, computer science, and/or engineering. One can qualify under Category C through a showing that he or she has taken and passed the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination.
> I thought an engineering degree, as well as passing the bar, was a requirement to > practice patent law
No. One must pass the USPTO's exam and be admitted before the bar in at least one state. If you are not admitted before the bar but do pass the exam you can be a patent agent.
Maybe. The USPTO must operate within the constraints set by Congress and the courts. Software patents were forced on them by the First Circuit: they opposed them initially.
The participants in such shows are carefully selected to be dumber than the audience. Takes some doing, as they also have to qualify as mentally competent.
> I guess he's exaggerating, since he must be aware of the deep connection between algebra > and geometry which is realized via manipulating equations.
My high school algegra teachers were not aware of that connection (my geometry teacher was. She was also about the best teacher there.)
...I know I'm supposed to say "Things ain't like they used to be!" but the fact is, they never were. K12 in the fifties and sixties tried hard to convince me that I was to hate math and science and treated me as wierdo when I didn't. Instead I learned to despise classroom education, which did me incalculable harm at university.
Slashdot Mirror
But since I don't claim to understand DNSSEC I'll ask it: how secure is DNSSEC against abuse by governments?
...and your cellphone, and on all devices with batteries and embedded processors.
Don't be an ass. He's a jock of the "team captain" type.
> How about real trees instead, try to get some deserts back to being green.
There would be trees there now if they could grow there.
> And just getting charcoal down into the subsurface soil area in general, plowing the
> extra carbon into the soil in the form of charcoalized biomass. Build up the soil tilth
> all over and we won't have to use as much fossil fuel fertilizers.
Good idea, but soil organics are not a substitute for the minerals that plants require ("fertilizer"). Green plants do not utilize organic material at all. Also, moldboard plowing, which is what you are suggesting, is currently frowned upon. We are supposed to leave all the trash on the surface for erosion control.
BTW nitrogen (in the form of ammonia or nitrate) is the only "fossil fuel" fertilizer, and it could be manufactured just as easily using nuclear power.
> The other thing is that that no matter how many trees you plant, it still takes years
> before they are able to take up significant amounts of C02...
Don't plant trees at all. Plant one (or several) of the many crops that remove CO2 at a much higher tons/acre-year rate than trees do and start doing so immediately.
> ...where as one of these does so immediately.
No. It only does so after at least ten years of political wrangling, contract negotiations, R&D, and manufacturing (assuming everything goes smoothly and there are no nimby lawsuits).
> Oh, and stop cutting down the ones that are already there.
You need to cut them down and bury them. Otherwise after a while your forest reaches a steady state where decay releases CO2 as fast as the the trees sequester it.
> However I do wonder what can be done with the liquid CO2 produced.
The most common proposal is to pump it down abandoned natural gas wells.
> It would make a lot more sense to use real trees.
It would make sense to use real plants, but not necessarily trees. Just grow crops and bury them. This has a major drawback, though: it does not involve a multi-year multi-billion dollar Federal "program". It could be implemented immediately with existing technology and resources.
Storage for liquid CO2 has been extensively researched. There are several viable possibilites.
No theft is ocurring at all. Copyright infringement is not theft.
> But if it incorporates GPL code, it automatically falls under the GPL.
No it doesn't. If it incorporates GPL code without itself being under the GPL it infringes the copyright on the incorporated code.
Well, in an item well up the page from the one linked to.
...but has the copyright owner confirmed that this was not done with permission? I doubt that it was, but you really should make sure before making accusations of copyright infringement. After all, enforcement is entirely up to the copyright owner.
Thus no degree is required.
> I thought an engineering degree, as well as passing the bar, was a requirement to
> practice patent law
No. One must pass the USPTO's exam and be admitted before the bar in at least one state. If you are not admitted before the bar but do pass the exam you can be a patent agent.
Maybe. The USPTO must operate within the constraints set by Congress and the courts. Software patents were forced on them by the First Circuit: they opposed them initially.
The participants in such shows are carefully selected to be dumber than the audience. Takes some doing, as they also have to qualify as mentally competent.
BTW "fail" is a verb.
> Stop hiring Education Majors to teach The Hard Sciences.
The government won't license anyone else to teach (one of many examples of the perniciousness of the entire concept of licensing).
> I guess he's exaggerating, since he must be aware of the deep connection between algebra
> and geometry which is realized via manipulating equations.
My high school algegra teachers were not aware of that connection (my geometry teacher was. She was also about the best teacher there.)
We had "tracks" here too. Didn't work.
...I know I'm supposed to say "Things ain't like they used to be!" but the fact is, they never were. K12 in the fifties and sixties tried hard to convince me that I was to hate math and science and treated me as wierdo when I didn't. Instead I learned to despise classroom education, which did me incalculable harm at university.
Basically, public education sucks.
Political "science" is no more science than creation "science" is science. This article belongs under politics.
...it isn't homeopathic.
> However, it's noted that this deal must be approved by the court, and should not be
> considered 'done' yet.
Then why did you headline it as if it were?
> I hope you are right, because we have no exposure to this one, and no immunity.
The immune system does not rely exclusively on previous exposure. Your body has many different defenses against bacteria.
Disease-causing bacteria have evolved to survive in the extremely hostile environment inside living animals.