The problem with the man in the middle is the man in the middle. If I don't trust a restaurant to serve me the seafood I want, how can I trust them to not falsify the DNA information? This is an absolutely stupid idea and does nothing to "reassure" people. Stop insisting you want $5.99 all you can eat lobster, and eat somewhere decent for a change. Until you can bring your own independent rapid-test kit and do your own test before your food gets cold, guess what - you still have to trust the damned restaurant.
a trait that makes ants stay away from spider webs is more likely to keep an ant alive than kill one.
Interesting - you're suggesting that this "repellent" might not be so much a chemical produced intentionally by the spider but rather that ants have somehow become sensitive to this chemical? That would mean that at some point in the past, the were a hell of a lot of these spiders around and their favorite meal was ant.
That is a handy type of repellant, but will the Ants become immune to it after a while
Why? That's the good thing about a repellent: it does not kill ants. So unless you have ants that can only survive by eating spiders, a repellent should not affect the evolution of the ants in any way. They will just move out of the way and find something else to scavenge. Now if you start guarding all their food-sources with this repellent and put evolutionary "pressure" (ie, overcoming this chemical puzzle means significant advantage and survival likelyhood compared to other ant colonies) you might see resistance. But otherwise, no.
A spider will eat one ant. It has trouble coping with thousands or even hundreds of thousands of ants at a time, however. I think the defense mechanism is to avoid the spider getting ambushed by a roving ant army, but any lone ants can be dealt with with the usual efficiency.
Animal != mammal. The summary is actually valid. Or would you classify spiders as plants or fungi (or bacteria or ancient bacteria in the 5 kingdom system)?.
Perhaps the researcher meant to refer specifically to spiders
I agree - I was going to post pretty much the same thing. Chemical warfare is evident throughout biology from bacteria and yeasts all the way up through cephalopods to mammals like the skunk. Perhaps said researcher mis-spoke, or was referring to his particular field. Either way it proves that a specialist is a person who knows a great deal about very little.
Yes, but the peak means that next year, you are pumping up LESS oil than this year. It's not a flat curve all the way to the end of the oil. It's a downward slope. That is going to hurt like a bitch. I'm sure there will always be oil because oil can be made from other things. But I am also sure that oil will be the stuff that powers government and military machinery. We'll all be on bikes. Well not me, I'll be dead.
It's a list of proven oil reserves, and a list of world oil demand. What more do you want? Do your own homework instead of thinking what others tell you to think.
Weasel words: "At current rates of consumption". Even if it were true that there is about 3 times more oil, you cannot ignore exponential growth. 2% is exponential growth. 70/2 = doubling every 35 years. But the average world economic growth is around 3%, which means the world economy (and thus oil demand) doubles every 70/3 = 23 years. Therefore "At current rates of consumption" is a load of horse-shit that is only good for THIS year. You will find that in 10 years there will be significantly less than "140 years" of oil left. There are formulas to work out exponentials, and they are left as an exercise for the reader.
Meh there's no point. Anyway the market is proving better than anyone else what is happening with the world's oil supply. Every second there's a hint of economic growth, the price of oil goes shooting up. There's still a little slack left in the system which is why we're not seeing an exponential rise in oil prices - but soon. Another fair bit of evidence is the lack of desire to build new refineries by energy companies. Why? Because they know they will not use them.
No, there's 250 years of coal left - at today's consumption rates. Now what is going to happen when we run out of oil and rely on coal for absolutely everything we used to rely on oil for? You think that might affect consumption and demand a little? Then factor in growth, because we're proving that we are going to grow as a global population until we exhaust our environment.
I know it's hard to live in the information age and even harder to use a calculator and even harder when big numbers are involved, but there you go. Also remember China is growing 9% a year. That adds the demand of a country the size of Australia, every year. And that's just China.
Anyone with a calculator that has a working divide button will realize that it's going to be over a lot sooner than most people think. Anyone who knows how to account for exponential growth in demand realizes that it's going to be even sooner than that. The first year that we are no longer able to meet our demand, we are going to feel it hard. And from that point, it's just going to get worse and worse every year thanks to diminishing returns.
comforting story about how we can all keep burning oil, gas, and coal forever?
You mean it's never going to run out, ending all this debate once and for all? OMG I better get drilling, I need to tap into this infinite fossil fuel reserve that we're not halfway through.
Like I keep repeating - there's only 40 years of oil left. That's a generous estimate that does not take into account growth. So drill baby drill can drill all they want, the total CO2 released from fossil fuels is just going to reach equilibrium faster. When the oil/coal is gone, it's gone forever.
If you think Bethesda honestly created a great game that is worth what they charge and you buy it, they deserve and have earned the money they made.
Yes I do. Skyrim is fun. It's not without its problems, but it's fun and it's beautiful and it's a great pass-time. I bought Silent Hunter 3 from Ubisoft and it was a buggy piece of shit. I bought Silent Hunter 4 hoping for improvement. They made it worse. I tried Silent Hunter 5 without buying it and was convinced I would never give Ubisoft another penny.
You do know the Skyrim is now locked to steam now right?
Yes, I have a copy here. And I really don't care about them locking it to steam (it can still be cracked if I wanted to, or if Steam went out of business). Steam allows me to install it on all my computers, so I can still play on my laptop when I travel. What more could I want?
Slashdot Mirror
You may start to form an orderly line outside Apple stores as of now.
The problem with the man in the middle is the man in the middle. If I don't trust a restaurant to serve me the seafood I want, how can I trust them to not falsify the DNA information? This is an absolutely stupid idea and does nothing to "reassure" people. Stop insisting you want $5.99 all you can eat lobster, and eat somewhere decent for a change. Until you can bring your own independent rapid-test kit and do your own test before your food gets cold, guess what - you still have to trust the damned restaurant.
a trait that makes ants stay away from spider webs is more likely to keep an ant alive than kill one.
Interesting - you're suggesting that this "repellent" might not be so much a chemical produced intentionally by the spider but rather that ants have somehow become sensitive to this chemical? That would mean that at some point in the past, the were a hell of a lot of these spiders around and their favorite meal was ant.
That is a handy type of repellant, but will the Ants become immune to it after a while
Why? That's the good thing about a repellent: it does not kill ants. So unless you have ants that can only survive by eating spiders, a repellent should not affect the evolution of the ants in any way. They will just move out of the way and find something else to scavenge. Now if you start guarding all their food-sources with this repellent and put evolutionary "pressure" (ie, overcoming this chemical puzzle means significant advantage and survival likelyhood compared to other ant colonies) you might see resistance. But otherwise, no.
A spider will eat one ant. It has trouble coping with thousands or even hundreds of thousands of ants at a time, however. I think the defense mechanism is to avoid the spider getting ambushed by a roving ant army, but any lone ants can be dealt with with the usual efficiency.
And protista - always forgetting protista. Been a long time since I took basic biology.
Animal != mammal. The summary is actually valid. Or would you classify spiders as plants or fungi (or bacteria or ancient bacteria in the 5 kingdom system)?.
Perhaps the researcher meant to refer specifically to spiders
I agree - I was going to post pretty much the same thing. Chemical warfare is evident throughout biology from bacteria and yeasts all the way up through cephalopods to mammals like the skunk. Perhaps said researcher mis-spoke, or was referring to his particular field. Either way it proves that a specialist is a person who knows a great deal about very little.
Yes, but the peak means that next year, you are pumping up LESS oil than this year. It's not a flat curve all the way to the end of the oil. It's a downward slope. That is going to hurt like a bitch. I'm sure there will always be oil because oil can be made from other things. But I am also sure that oil will be the stuff that powers government and military machinery. We'll all be on bikes. Well not me, I'll be dead.
Nah, I stopped being rational on the internet a long time ago. It only leads to being trolled more.
When it comes time to stick that label on websites like whitehouse.gov and senate.gov for all the warmongering talk, illegal drone strikes, etc?
It's a list of proven oil reserves, and a list of world oil demand. What more do you want? Do your own homework instead of thinking what others tell you to think.
Weasel words: "At current rates of consumption". Even if it were true that there is about 3 times more oil, you cannot ignore exponential growth. 2% is exponential growth. 70/2 = doubling every 35 years. But the average world economic growth is around 3%, which means the world economy (and thus oil demand) doubles every 70/3 = 23 years. Therefore "At current rates of consumption" is a load of horse-shit that is only good for THIS year. You will find that in 10 years there will be significantly less than "140 years" of oil left. There are formulas to work out exponentials, and they are left as an exercise for the reader.
Then in that case we had better get very good very fast at fixing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Meh there's no point. Anyway the market is proving better than anyone else what is happening with the world's oil supply. Every second there's a hint of economic growth, the price of oil goes shooting up. There's still a little slack left in the system which is why we're not seeing an exponential rise in oil prices - but soon. Another fair bit of evidence is the lack of desire to build new refineries by energy companies. Why? Because they know they will not use them.
No, there's 250 years of coal left - at today's consumption rates. Now what is going to happen when we run out of oil and rely on coal for absolutely everything we used to rely on oil for? You think that might affect consumption and demand a little? Then factor in growth, because we're proving that we are going to grow as a global population until we exhaust our environment.
Now this one really does require a citation
I know it's hard to live in the information age and even harder to use a calculator and even harder when big numbers are involved, but there you go. Also remember China is growing 9% a year. That adds the demand of a country the size of Australia, every year. And that's just China.
I think that 20 years ago there was only 30 years oil left.
We're digging 20,000 feet under ocean beds for oil now. Exactly how much oil do you expect there to be in the mantle?
Don't braise me bro!
Anyone with a calculator that has a working divide button will realize that it's going to be over a lot sooner than most people think. Anyone who knows how to account for exponential growth in demand realizes that it's going to be even sooner than that. The first year that we are no longer able to meet our demand, we are going to feel it hard. And from that point, it's just going to get worse and worse every year thanks to diminishing returns.
comforting story about how we can all keep burning oil, gas, and coal forever?
You mean it's never going to run out, ending all this debate once and for all? OMG I better get drilling, I need to tap into this infinite fossil fuel reserve that we're not halfway through.
Like I keep repeating - there's only 40 years of oil left. That's a generous estimate that does not take into account growth. So drill baby drill can drill all they want, the total CO2 released from fossil fuels is just going to reach equilibrium faster. When the oil/coal is gone, it's gone forever.
If you think Bethesda honestly created a great game that is worth what they charge and you buy it, they deserve and have earned the money they made.
Yes I do. Skyrim is fun. It's not without its problems, but it's fun and it's beautiful and it's a great pass-time. I bought Silent Hunter 3 from Ubisoft and it was a buggy piece of shit. I bought Silent Hunter 4 hoping for improvement. They made it worse. I tried Silent Hunter 5 without buying it and was convinced I would never give Ubisoft another penny.
You do know the Skyrim is now locked to steam now right?
Yes, I have a copy here. And I really don't care about them locking it to steam (it can still be cracked if I wanted to, or if Steam went out of business). Steam allows me to install it on all my computers, so I can still play on my laptop when I travel. What more could I want?
And in the 1990's they were coasting on the acquisition of Strategic Simulations Inc, and all its franchises. Which they ruined, one by one.