1) Short of enforced birth control, the human population will increase.
2) Unchecked population growth will imply large scale changes to the environment. Food must be grown, energy must be collected, people must live somewhere. All the latter require surface area and raw materials of one form or another.
3) Current economics or attitudes, and their effects, are symptoms of the growing population. Changing them will not change the fact that more humans are created than die.
Therefore, one could conclude that the changes proposed by the enviro sensitive are only delay tactics. The global climate, if it is affected by humans, will change whether we like it or not.
The challenge then is not to try to stem or avert the change. It will happen. Change, as always, is inevitable. Those who would try to convince you otherwise have their own interests at heart. A report endorsed by politicians and industry? Think about it.
The challenge IS to adapt to the new environment. Humans have done so in the past and we will do so in the future. That's why we're the dominant species.
... punctuates the article. Hard not to see a political spin in an article that dwells on a Global Warming tye-in with the Great Dying with what is very sparse evidence. In fact, the relation seems almost forced.
Several years ago, an acquaintance with an electric wheel chair sought my help in 'noise hardening' his chair. In areas with lots of A/C line noise, generators, motors, etc., his chair would go beserk. We never had any success. The manufacturer refused to acknowledge any problem. Do these prosthetic limbs have the same potential problem?
It would be interesting to see the article written by someone who doesn't believe humans are causing global warming.
"The evidence is clear that a major climate change is underway."
Not a contentious statement but it punctuates the very end of the article after statements like:
"The climate system is remarkably sensitive to natural variability," he said. "It's likely that it is equally sensitive to effects brought on by human activity, changes like increased greenhouse gases, altered land-use policies and fossil-fuel dependence.
There is no closing quote on this comment so who said it? Is it commentary added after the professor's remark by the article's author. More importantly:
a) the climate system is sensitive to natural variability but a change in solar activity seems vastly larger in scale and importance than the estimated output of human greenhouse gases. Even volcanic acitivity seems prodigous in comparison (great output over a short time); and
b) since the human population was much less then than now, all agree humans were not _then_ responsible for the climate change (it seems it was decreased solar activity but that is a theory). And since "Any prudent person would agree that we don't yet understand the complexities with the climate system... ", then doesn't it seem unreasonable to conclude anything except perhpas local climate sensitivity to human activity?
In short, if the professor's data is taken at face value, it all seems to argue that perhaps the Earth's climate changes willy-nilly with or without human input. So from the information presented:
a) Was there a big climate change 5200 years ago. Yes. b) Is there another one going on right now? Maybe (flamebait?). c) Has any link been established between the causes of each? No. d) Is there anything in the climate record (of 5200 yrs ago) to suggest humans are the cause now? No. e) Is it news that the climate changes? No. f) Besides a bit of history, have we learned anything from the professor's data about how the Earth's climatic system works? No.
Perhaps humans are vastly overestimating their global impact on a system they don't really understand.
Nope. They're on 3.0. Development seems to have stopped on the PVM/parallel functionality. Too bad. I got a primitive version (circa 2.4) working on a cluster of 5 PI's back in '99.
http://www.beanblossom.in.us/larryy/KokoChapter. ht ml
The idea is _they_ can communicate with us, with the computer providing a common medium when body language, appendage gestures, vocal frequencies, etc. are mutually incomprehensible.
At the moment, this device only controls a cursor. The computer can provide mutually understood symbols and the cursor movement can be controlled even by something without opposable thumbs, fingers, etc. But then what of the future? Take the same idea and perhaps allow the composition of imagery. Thus you might have a "paint me a picture" form of communication. What would that reveal? In short, don't stop with the current baby steps. Expand, extrapolate. Where could this go?
It seems some of the potentially really clever species like whales, dolphins, and elephants, really aren't equipped for communications with humans e.g., voice, American sign language, point-and-click. Maybe with this interface and computers, we can establish more successful forms of communication with species that see the world much more differently than us... unlike say chimps and gorillas which seem so like us that it's depressing... two both species actually.
... as there seems to be a requirement for the FORBIDDEN TECHNOLOGY. So much for that idea. Anyways, there will never be a lack of hydocarbons so who needs an alternative? We just have to make hydrocarbon use cleaner and more efficient.
The 'stupid' contrarians aren't necessarily, and it is stupid to think otherwise.
Cases in point:
a) when did the theory of tectonic plates originate although being dismissed despite evidence from the 'fringe' (1912)? When was it accepted (~1965)? ( coincidentally, after the death of its originator.) Here is a more telling commentary on the acceptance of that theory.
b) how many scientists believed in brontosaurus (they were wrong)? How about the fringe group that believed in the warm-blooded-ness of dinosaurs?
c) how come when Thomas Gold's theories on the deep biosphere and the origins of petroleum come up, the 'concensus' is touted as dismissing him. And yet it is rarely mentioned that Russian and European scientists have accepted and built up considerable evidence that he's right. Now that he's dead you will see a swing to acceptance of his theories (by the North American consensus makers) which has already begun.
You seem to suggest that only the contrarian does not accept the popular 'consensus' or the 'obvious'. In fact, the consensus may be just as polluted by the politics of the field and its journals. The 'obvious' simply is no measure of reality (quantum physics anyone?).
... differs between North America and the other G8's. Having experienced traffic jams in Europe (esp. Autobahn funnily enough) who wouldn't be relieved to be able to surf or watch TV? That isn't the situation encountered on North America's interstates and trans-Canada.
It seems a telling comment on national maturity when the US attitude is to sue ("It's someone else's fault, not mine!") to the point that it actually inhibits the introduction of technology to a market. Or maybe, the most mature and effective legal systems are found in the US. Sad, either way.
Many comments so far seem to grouse about the limitations of the 3-D interface vice the 2-D interface. Instead think about such an OS with head mounted display and gesture recognition technology. Now you're talking about an immersive computer experience and croquet would seem to be a good step in that direction.
... the non-idealized weather accurately, then perhaps that could lend credence to a statement that that idealized hurricanes, simulated under warmer, high-CO2 conditions, are more intense and have higher precipitation rates than under present-day conditions. Come on. Construct a model under say the wrong assumption that high jelly bean consumption will lead to stronger hurricanes, and when you boost that variable voila! Huge jelly bean consumption yields bigger hurricanes!! What a surprise. But it doesn't make the model an accurate reflection of reality.
Get real! "Idealized hurricanes" have yet to allow reliable forecasts. Most of the latter have come from experienced scientists, not from their models.
C'mon, he's right. The reaction to a 20% increase would have been a resounding condemnation of all human industrial processes plus a descrying of all nations that haven't signed on to Kyoto, etc.
Maybe what it all means is that we still have very little understanding of our environment and that any statements to the contrary are really politically motivated.
So is the measure of something's worth simply in how close to zero cost it is or how little memory it takes?
A lovely open source project. Is it clearly better than its open source competitors? No. Is it better than its closed source competitors? No. Does one need to have need of a small memory footprint? No (1 Gb RAM/80 GB HD my current set up of the past 2 yrs).
The only thing to admire is the tenacity with which the developers continue to support and improve on the product. That kind of work ethic is always nice to see.
... really. Here's a link stating that cigarettes are greater polluters than diesels. It makes it hard to really focus on what the greater ill is. Are our vehicles really greater polluters than our industries (seems unlikely in the Third world)? Are fossil fuels truly the great satan or might they actually be the most efficient source of energy we currently have despite their imperfections? Or perhaps there are more dangerous and ubiquitous polluters closer to home as this article suggests.
2) unseen by-products: whatever is required to grow sunflowers (fertilizers & their production, tractor fuel by-products, etc)
3) scaling: how many sunflowers does it take to make how much usable fuel?
4) scaling: how much viable farm land can afford to be lost to the production of "fuel" vice "food"?
Fuel cells are really neat. The problem of fuelling fuel cells is huge. Even without fuel cells the whole concept of biomass based fuels simply can't scale to current demand . Think about it, the U.S. produces amounts of oil measured in millions of barrels per day to sustain current consumption (let alone what it imports)! What quantity of biomass is required to come close to that and what are you willing to sacrifice to do it?
Sorry, but this story is a non-starter. If we're serious about addressing the dangers of fossil fuels, then we have to cut back on our energy consumption first and foremost. Anything else is just a "diet pill" approach. Don't change your fuel or engine, learn to live without/depend less on the vehicle(s).
... is to find a very common circumstance and write about it. Presentation is everything and it helps to neglect accuracy in presenting your background as witnessed here
Stop and think: what are the odds that the CIA would fail to ensure that all copies of this most (potentially) vital intelligence was in their hands? Do you really think that they would let this guy make a copy or that they wouldn't have shut him down if he had? Get real.
Several other posts have pointed out the general implausibility of the acquisition and transfer of data. The last bit on the general agenda seems too close to vindicating the Bush agenda.
Pure hoax... or possibly part of someone's political agenda.
The team used a drill that fires near-boiling water to bore a hole through the glacier.
While they claim that the DNA print does not match bacteria from the snow above, is it not possible that the drilling equipment introduced organisms from elsewhere? Or was the drilling equipment (and "bucket") and near-boiling water sterilized prior to use?
And now that the lake has been penetrated, what faith can there be in any future sampling? Bearing in mind that the article is quite "light" on details, this just seemed a very ham-fisted operation. Was there not an earlier article on/. that spoke of the hesitance in probing an Antartic subglacial lake because they could not find a way of _not_ altering the environment and thus casting doubt on any results?
1. People will complain. Long and loud."... and the OSS programmer will tell them that since it's free they can just like it or lump it. Come on, read this forum. And in a way that's not surprising. A person works for free on something, it becomes like art i.e. a deeply personal creation. Then some blunt critic comes along unaware of the pain or challenge of the process... it's probably hard to be polite. Still, it doesn't lead to a better product.
First thought was it seemed that with all the heavy industry out in space, Earth could be turned into a garden paradise.
Second thought was that the SUV's would still be around. All the fossil fuels going to fuel industry could now go to cars thereby extending the available resources well into the future. And, humans would still whack down forests for condos and developments in the prettier parts of the world.
Your contention is that users are mostly tech idiots and MS hires software writers whose work sucks. You got 'tude dude.
Having met, at several levels, MS employees there have been no idiots to date. Any academic institution will also be able to inform you that MS tends to hire their best and brightest. The same is not true of consultants/independents who often have a very inflated perception of their worth and abilities.
Secondly, MS does seem to accept the fact that their prospective users are not technically savvy but doesn't treat them as idiots. Updating is made easy. To the detriment of their current software, they maintained backward compatibility far longer than many think they should have. While not perfect, their interfaces are made to be easy to use. The same is not true of a tremendous amount of OSS and independent software that is out there.
The MS bashing is sour grapes. If something came along that was truly much better, MS would sink like anything else. Look at the automobile industry. Why doesn't everyone own a Japanese auto? Because really, the American products are good enough. MS is good enough (and American:).
Slashdot Mirror
1) Short of enforced birth control, the human population will increase.
2) Unchecked population growth will imply large scale changes to the environment. Food must be grown, energy must be collected, people must live somewhere. All the latter require surface area and raw materials of one form or another.
3) Current economics or attitudes, and their effects, are symptoms of the growing population. Changing them will not change the fact that more humans are created than die.
Therefore, one could conclude that the changes proposed by the enviro sensitive are only delay tactics. The global climate, if it is affected by humans, will change whether we like it or not.
The challenge then is not to try to stem or avert the change. It will happen. Change, as always, is inevitable. Those who would try to convince you otherwise have their own interests at heart. A report endorsed by politicians and industry? Think about it.
The challenge IS to adapt to the new environment. Humans have done so in the past and we will do so in the future. That's why we're the dominant species.
... punctuates the article. Hard not to see a political spin in an article that dwells on a Global Warming tye-in with the Great Dying with what is very sparse evidence. In fact, the relation seems almost forced.
Several years ago, an acquaintance with an electric wheel chair sought my help in 'noise hardening' his chair. In areas with lots of A/C line noise, generators, motors, etc., his chair would go beserk. We never had any success. The manufacturer refused to acknowledge any problem. Do these prosthetic limbs have the same potential problem?
It would be interesting to see the article written by someone who doesn't believe humans are causing global warming.
... ", then doesn't it seem unreasonable to conclude anything except perhpas local climate sensitivity to human activity?
"The evidence is clear that a major climate change is underway."
Not a contentious statement but it punctuates the very end of the article after statements like:
"The climate system is remarkably sensitive to natural variability," he said. "It's likely that it is equally sensitive to effects brought on by human activity, changes like increased greenhouse gases, altered land-use policies and fossil-fuel dependence.
There is no closing quote on this comment so who said it? Is it commentary added after the professor's remark by the article's author. More importantly:
a) the climate system is sensitive to natural variability but a change in solar activity seems vastly larger in scale and importance than the estimated output of human greenhouse gases. Even volcanic acitivity seems prodigous in comparison (great output over a short time); and
b) since the human population was much less then than now, all agree humans were not _then_ responsible for the climate change (it seems it was decreased solar activity but that is a theory). And since "Any prudent person would agree that we don't yet understand the complexities with the climate system
In short, if the professor's data is taken at face value, it all seems to argue that perhaps the Earth's climate changes willy-nilly with or without human input. So from the information presented:
a) Was there a big climate change 5200 years ago. Yes.
b) Is there another one going on right now? Maybe (flamebait?).
c) Has any link been established between the causes of each? No.
d) Is there anything in the climate record (of 5200 yrs ago) to suggest humans are the cause now? No.
e) Is it news that the climate changes? No.
f) Besides a bit of history, have we learned anything from the professor's data about how the Earth's climatic system works? No.
Perhaps humans are vastly overestimating their global impact on a system they don't really understand.
Nope. They're on 3.0. Development seems to have stopped on the PVM/parallel functionality. Too bad. I got a primitive version (circa 2.4) working on a cluster of 5 PI's back in '99.
*sigh* Get informed:
. ht ml
http://www.beanblossom.in.us/larryy/KokoChapter
The idea is _they_ can communicate with us, with the computer providing a common medium when body language, appendage gestures, vocal frequencies, etc. are mutually incomprehensible.
At the moment, this device only controls a cursor. The computer can provide mutually understood symbols and the cursor movement can be controlled even by something without opposable thumbs, fingers, etc. But then what of the future? Take the same idea and perhaps allow the composition of imagery. Thus you might have a "paint me a picture" form of communication. What would that reveal? In short, don't stop with the current baby steps. Expand, extrapolate. Where could this go?
It seems some of the potentially really clever species like whales, dolphins, and elephants, really aren't equipped for communications with humans e.g., voice, American sign language, point-and-click. Maybe with this interface and computers, we can establish more successful forms of communication with species that see the world much more differently than us ... unlike say chimps and gorillas which seem so like us that it's depressing ... two both species actually.
... which is here. If true, I would have thought it would merit some mention.
... as there seems to be a requirement for the FORBIDDEN TECHNOLOGY. So much for that idea. Anyways, there will never be a lack of hydocarbons so who needs an alternative? We just have to make hydrocarbon use cleaner and more efficient.
The 'stupid' contrarians aren't necessarily, and it is stupid to think otherwise.
Cases in point:
a) when did the theory of tectonic plates originate although being dismissed despite evidence from the 'fringe' (1912)? When was it accepted (~1965)? ( coincidentally, after the death of its originator.) Here is a more
telling commentary on the acceptance of that theory.
b) how many scientists believed in brontosaurus (they were wrong)? How about the fringe group that believed in the warm-blooded-ness of dinosaurs?
c) how come when Thomas Gold's theories on the deep biosphere and the origins of petroleum come up, the 'concensus' is touted as dismissing him. And yet it is rarely mentioned that Russian and European scientists have accepted and built up considerable evidence that he's right. Now that he's dead you will see a swing to acceptance of his theories (by the North American consensus makers) which has already begun.
You seem to suggest that only the contrarian does not accept the popular 'consensus' or the 'obvious'. In fact, the consensus may be just as polluted by the politics of the field and its journals. The 'obvious' simply is no measure of reality (quantum physics anyone?).
... differs between North America and the other G8's. Having experienced traffic jams in Europe (esp. Autobahn funnily enough) who wouldn't be relieved to be able to surf or watch TV? That isn't the situation encountered on North America's interstates and trans-Canada.
It seems a telling comment on national maturity when the US attitude is to sue ("It's someone else's fault, not mine!") to the point that it actually inhibits the introduction of technology to a market. Or maybe, the most mature and effective legal systems are found in the US. Sad, either way.
..., no matter how few, it's a good thing.
So maybe this, a HUD, and Croquet OS would provide a quadriplegic a very tangible sense of freedom from his/her physical constraints.
Many comments so far seem to grouse about the limitations of the 3-D interface vice the 2-D interface. Instead think about such an OS with head mounted display and gesture recognition technology. Now you're talking about an immersive computer experience and croquet would seem to be a good step in that direction.
... the non-idealized weather accurately, then perhaps that could lend credence to a statement that that idealized hurricanes, simulated under warmer, high-CO2 conditions, are more intense and have higher precipitation rates than under present-day conditions. Come on. Construct a model under say the wrong assumption that high jelly bean consumption will lead to stronger hurricanes, and when you boost that variable voila! Huge jelly bean consumption yields bigger hurricanes!! What a surprise. But it doesn't make the model an accurate reflection of reality.
Get real! "Idealized hurricanes" have yet to allow reliable forecasts. Most of the latter have come from experienced scientists, not from their models.
C'mon, he's right. The reaction to a 20% increase would have been a resounding condemnation of all human industrial processes plus a descrying of all nations that haven't signed on to Kyoto, etc.
Maybe what it all means is that we still have very little understanding of our environment and that any statements to the contrary are really politically motivated.
So is the measure of something's worth simply in how close to zero cost it is or how little memory it takes?
A lovely open source project. Is it clearly better than its open source competitors? No. Is it better than its closed source competitors? No. Does one need to have need of a small memory footprint? No (1 Gb RAM/80 GB HD my current set up of the past 2 yrs).
The only thing to admire is the tenacity with which the developers continue to support and improve on the product. That kind of work ethic is always nice to see.
... really. Here's a link stating that cigarettes are greater polluters than diesels. It makes it hard to really focus on what the greater ill is. Are our vehicles really greater polluters than our industries (seems unlikely in the Third world)? Are fossil fuels truly the great satan or might they actually be the most efficient source of energy we currently have despite their imperfections? Or perhaps there are more dangerous and ubiquitous polluters closer to home as this article suggests.
... because:
1) by-products are carbon dioxide and methane.
2) unseen by-products: whatever is required to grow sunflowers (fertilizers & their production, tractor fuel by-products, etc)
3) scaling: how many sunflowers does it take to make how much usable fuel?
4) scaling: how much viable farm land can afford to be lost to the production of "fuel" vice "food"?
Fuel cells are really neat. The problem of fuelling fuel cells is huge. Even without fuel cells the whole concept of biomass based fuels simply can't scale to current demand . Think about it, the U.S. produces amounts of oil measured in millions of barrels per day to sustain current consumption (let alone what it imports)! What quantity of biomass is required to come close to that and what are you willing to sacrifice to do it?
Sorry, but this story is a non-starter. If we're serious about addressing the dangers of fossil fuels, then we have to cut back on our energy consumption first and foremost. Anything else is just a "diet pill" approach. Don't change your fuel or engine, learn to live without/depend less on the vehicle(s).
... is to find a very common circumstance and write about it. Presentation is everything and it helps to neglect accuracy in presenting your background as witnessed here
... permeates this story.
... or possibly part of someone's political agenda.
Stop and think: what are the odds that the CIA would fail to ensure that all copies of this most (potentially) vital intelligence was in their hands? Do you really think that they would let this guy make a copy or that they wouldn't have shut him down if he had? Get real.
Several other posts have pointed out the general implausibility of the acquisition and transfer of data. The last bit on the general agenda seems too close to vindicating the Bush agenda.
Pure hoax
The team used a drill that fires near-boiling water to bore a hole through the glacier.
/. that spoke of the hesitance in probing an Antartic subglacial lake because they could not find a way of _not_ altering the environment and thus casting doubt on any results?
While they claim that the DNA print does not match bacteria from the snow above, is it not possible that the drilling equipment introduced organisms from elsewhere? Or was the drilling equipment (and "bucket") and near-boiling water sterilized prior to use?
And now that the lake has been penetrated, what faith can there be in any future sampling? Bearing in mind that the article is quite "light" on details, this just seemed a very ham-fisted operation. Was there not an earlier article on
" ...to use, two things will happen:
... and the OSS programmer will tell them that since it's free they can just like it or lump it. Come on, read this forum. And in a way that's not surprising. A person works for free on something, it becomes like art i.e. a deeply personal creation. Then some blunt critic comes along unaware of the pain or challenge of the process ... it's probably hard to be polite. Still, it doesn't lead to a better product.
1. People will complain. Long and loud."
... until reality kicked in.
... plus c'est la mème chose.
First thought was it seemed that with all the heavy industry out in space, Earth could be turned into a garden paradise.
Second thought was that the SUV's would still be around. All the fossil fuels going to fuel industry could now go to cars thereby extending the available resources well into the future. And, humans would still whack down forests for condos and developments in the prettier parts of the world.
Plus ca change
Your contention is that users are mostly tech idiots and MS hires software writers whose work sucks. You got 'tude dude.
:).
Having met, at several levels, MS employees there have been no idiots to date. Any academic institution will also be able to inform you that MS tends to hire their best and brightest. The same is not true of consultants/independents who often have a very inflated perception of their worth and abilities.
Secondly, MS does seem to accept the fact that their prospective users are not technically savvy but doesn't treat them as idiots. Updating is made easy. To the detriment of their current software, they maintained backward compatibility far longer than many think they should have. While not perfect, their interfaces are made to be easy to use. The same is not true of a tremendous amount of OSS and independent software that is out there.
The MS bashing is sour grapes. If something came along that was truly much better, MS would sink like anything else. Look at the automobile industry. Why doesn't everyone own a Japanese auto? Because really, the American products are good enough. MS is good enough (and American