Perhaps 'rot' is a bad choice of words. Submerged wood certainly doesn't stay in great shape. A few types of wood are fairly impervious to water, but most wood softens and eventually wears away. Lots of nice things in water eat away at it - unless of course you're in oxygen-free water, which was my point.
Rot has everything to do with the presence of oxygen. If there's oxygen, they will be destroyed over time.
What you're seeing with the water line is the difference of weather above the water line and repeated wet/dry/wet cycles as the sun dries out the portion above the water. The stumps are certainly 'softer' than they were and eventually they'll decay away, but it takes decades/centuries me thinks.
I've always found it rather arrogant of us to think that Nature won't figure out a way for us (or our descendants or some other species' descendants) to survive long after we're worm food.
Nature flatly doesn't care whether we survive or not. A parasite that kills its host is not a long term survival strategy, and we are systematically altering the environments in which we are supported or 'hosted'.
Why is it that what humans do seems never to be classified as "natural"
Maybe because we've only been here a blink of an eye? The world exists for literally billions of years before we showed up. We're the interlopers, it would behoove us to live within the stable parameters rather than see how far we can push them before a very complex system decides it's too far.
We aren't just subsisting, we're actively changing the environment well beyond what we 'need'. We think and choose to do things, animals and nature are not 'thinking' when they act. Lions don't kill more than they need, they don't kill 1000 wildabeast to save for next year. They don't fence off areas of land from other animals, preventing natural migrations that don't know political boundaries.
You can make the argument between 'natural' and 'normal', but not that what we're doing isn't causing significant harm.
The world had a lot more trees before we showed up and cut them down. Said trees don't stand up to a tsunami and in some cases are larger than a box car.
The size of the vehicle is relatively unimportant as long as it floats. A tree might even be better since it could be eaten on the way by many travelers, whereas a human made dock probably has treated would that isn't edible.
Indeed, this is 'natural'. Granted you could make the argument that maybe not as much 'debris' would be floating for said hitchhikers to use, but I'm guessing there would be just as much, just 'different'.
The whole point behind the ecology movement today is about trying to preserve everything in its current niche, to create a steady state system with no changes. Sorry, guys and girls, it's never been that way and it would take too much energy to try and force it to be that way.
While I understand your sentiment I have a slightly less cynical view:) The ecology movement today is that, to 'us', the world is a steady state environment. Meaning that in our normal lifespan, things should be relatively steady state. The environment doesn't change at this pace naturally.
We are clearly causing massive changes throughout the biosphere, so trying to prevent US from causing the change is the right thing to do. Sure change happens naturally, but when you can show massive upheaval compared to almost any previous similar time period, perhaps you should try to mitigate your impact.
I hear you, but to be fair, 'Irreversible' in the article is a bit misleading. It's only 'irreversible' in regards to our current time frames. As many of the deniers like to point out, the earth has been this warm and warmer and colder and just about everything else before. That's the nugget of truth they can cling too. The rates of change and whatever else is technically different now vs then are just 'details'.
The earth will recover just fine. We on the other hand are likely pretty well in for a 'fun' ride in the much nearer term.
Well there is the Healthcare Mandate. I'm a flaming liberal and I say it's unconstitutional.
I don't want the gov't granted the ability to make me buy services. Tax me and provide the services, i.e. single payer, is absolutely constitutional and that would be the right choice.
But yes, the GOP has a nice long track record of unconstitutional laws...like the 'Mandate' for instance;-)
You are correct, but recent history shows us that the design of our system was based on the assumption of people doing the 'right' thing and not playing to the crowd.
It doesn't work so well when you have people in all 3 branches doing exactly that for their respective 'crowds'.
There are numerous others. Now these aren't direct actions against the officers, but you can bet that in Boston they got some refresher training with it costing the city over $170k.
What if it's legally posted? If so the poster has had themselves censored...which is a free speech violation.
The point is that I can file a DMCA against anything and it has to be taken down. Period. No question, no verification, no nothing. That's what the law says.
How is that different than throwing you in jail before you see a judge? Obviously serious physical crimes can warrant imprisonment before trial or even arraignment but copyright infringement is hardly of that nature. And removal of the content that I legally posted is a violation of 'my' rights. Just because you 'say' it's illegal doesn't mean squat. Yet you get to take my stuff down solely on your world.
That's the problem. Have it be a notification process whereby the poster has a week or whatever to respond BEFORE the take down and then you're much much better off civil rights wise.
Warning? No it's not a 'warning'. It's automatic removal of the content. If the ISP doesn't do that then they lose their safe harbors provision under the DMCA. The law requires take down BEFORE you can say "No it's legal". Hell all of Justin Bieber's YouTube videos were taken offline, his own legal YouTube channel over a DMCA. They were back up within a day or two, but the point is that they were taken offline through an invalid DMCA. There is no verification of fact prior to take down in the DMCA process.
Perhaps you've heard of the Indie Bundle software promos? Seems to be a smashing success since they've done like 4 or 5 of them and made thousands of bucks, for something you can legally download for free. People will support quality work, because they want more of it.
But if you're going to sue them over ever shared file for $150K a piece, well no they aren't going to support you...because sharing that file caused no significant harm and everybody knows it. When the punishment doesn't fit the crime, the general public will start to lose respect for that law and violate it routinely.
Avengers seemed to do pretty god damned well in spite of fairly widespread piracy. Why do you think that is?
It's called 'Freedom of speech'. The government shall make no law abridging and all that.
It clearly abridges free speech. Which is legal until PROVEN otherwise. But here with the DMCA, that 'speech' has to be restricted until you prove you're allowed to say it when any Larry, Moe or Curly makes a claim against you.
That is flatly unconstitutional. If I could respond to a claim before the takedown say within 3 days or some other reasonable timeframe, then it's fine. But the immediate takedown notice is unconstitutional.
Then he takes the flack for taking down services for special needs kids.
He was legally in the right, but that doesn't make him a 'good guy'.
DMCA is the equivalent of me accusing you of something and putting you in prison until you prove otherwise to use the usual hyperbole tossed around.
There is no ability to challenge a DMCA. Only an ability to respond to it AFTER it has been implemented. In usual court proceedings I am granted an opportunity to refute the charge before punishment is implemented.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps 'rot' is a bad choice of words. Submerged wood certainly doesn't stay in great shape. A few types of wood are fairly impervious to water, but most wood softens and eventually wears away. Lots of nice things in water eat away at it - unless of course you're in oxygen-free water, which was my point.
Show me evidence of a glitchy driver causing a loud squealing noise
Put your hand on the table while I get my 3-Wood out of my bag. And if you've seen my golf handicap, yes my driver is 'glitchy' ;-)
Rot has everything to do with the presence of oxygen. If there's oxygen, they will be destroyed over time.
What you're seeing with the water line is the difference of weather above the water line and repeated wet/dry/wet cycles as the sun dries out the portion above the water. The stumps are certainly 'softer' than they were and eventually they'll decay away, but it takes decades/centuries me thinks.
I've always found it rather arrogant of us to think that Nature won't figure out a way for us (or our descendants or some other species' descendants) to survive long after we're worm food.
Nature flatly doesn't care whether we survive or not. A parasite that kills its host is not a long term survival strategy, and we are systematically altering the environments in which we are supported or 'hosted'.
Why is it that what humans do seems never to be classified as "natural"
Maybe because we've only been here a blink of an eye? The world exists for literally billions of years before we showed up. We're the interlopers, it would behoove us to live within the stable parameters rather than see how far we can push them before a very complex system decides it's too far. We aren't just subsisting, we're actively changing the environment well beyond what we 'need'. We think and choose to do things, animals and nature are not 'thinking' when they act. Lions don't kill more than they need, they don't kill 1000 wildabeast to save for next year. They don't fence off areas of land from other animals, preventing natural migrations that don't know political boundaries.
You can make the argument between 'natural' and 'normal', but not that what we're doing isn't causing significant harm.
The world had a lot more trees before we showed up and cut them down. Said trees don't stand up to a tsunami and in some cases are larger than a box car.
The size of the vehicle is relatively unimportant as long as it floats. A tree might even be better since it could be eaten on the way by many travelers, whereas a human made dock probably has treated would that isn't edible.
Indeed, this is 'natural'. Granted you could make the argument that maybe not as much 'debris' would be floating for said hitchhikers to use, but I'm guessing there would be just as much, just 'different'.
The whole point behind the ecology movement today is about trying to preserve everything in its current niche, to create a steady state system with no changes. Sorry, guys and girls, it's never been that way and it would take too much energy to try and force it to be that way.
While I understand your sentiment I have a slightly less cynical view :) The ecology movement today is that, to 'us', the world is a steady state environment. Meaning that in our normal lifespan, things should be relatively steady state. The environment doesn't change at this pace naturally.
We are clearly causing massive changes throughout the biosphere, so trying to prevent US from causing the change is the right thing to do. Sure change happens naturally, but when you can show massive upheaval compared to almost any previous similar time period, perhaps you should try to mitigate your impact.
I hear you, but to be fair, 'Irreversible' in the article is a bit misleading. It's only 'irreversible' in regards to our current time frames. As many of the deniers like to point out, the earth has been this warm and warmer and colder and just about everything else before. That's the nugget of truth they can cling too. The rates of change and whatever else is technically different now vs then are just 'details'.
The earth will recover just fine. We on the other hand are likely pretty well in for a 'fun' ride in the much nearer term.
a high end power cord made by monster cable
Wait, when did Monster start selling quality stuff?
they fly using the same principles of a helicopter
So they don't fly then? i.e. helicopters don't fly, they just beat the air into submission ;-)
Nah, I'm sure the Democrats will stand up to....sorry who am I kidding
I'm sorry, the proper term is 'Ludacris Speed'
;-P
And you didn't phrase it the form of question. I'll have "Geeks who lost their cred for $400 Alex"
And "general welfare" doesn't mean "everyone gets free stuff paid for by the productive members of society
So you're against Medicare and Social Security? Kinda popular programs those...
Article I, Section 8:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States
Tax and provide service across the states is fully covered under this clause.
Well there is the Healthcare Mandate. I'm a flaming liberal and I say it's unconstitutional.
;-)
I don't want the gov't granted the ability to make me buy services. Tax me and provide the services, i.e. single payer, is absolutely constitutional and that would be the right choice.
But yes, the GOP has a nice long track record of unconstitutional laws...like the 'Mandate' for instance
You are correct, but recent history shows us that the design of our system was based on the assumption of people doing the 'right' thing and not playing to the crowd.
It doesn't work so well when you have people in all 3 branches doing exactly that for their respective 'crowds'.
linky
Boston pays 170k for illegal arrest
There are numerous others. Now these aren't direct actions against the officers, but you can bet that in Boston they got some refresher training with it costing the city over $170k.
Or he could have simply sent her a nice letter or email - which if he had enough information to sue her, he had enough information to do.
wait you're replace a ridiculous comparison and use an even more ridiculous one? Perhaps you need to rethink what 'serious crimes' are...
What if it's legally posted? If so the poster has had themselves censored...which is a free speech violation.
The point is that I can file a DMCA against anything and it has to be taken down. Period. No question, no verification, no nothing. That's what the law says.
How is that different than throwing you in jail before you see a judge? Obviously serious physical crimes can warrant imprisonment before trial or even arraignment but copyright infringement is hardly of that nature. And removal of the content that I legally posted is a violation of 'my' rights. Just because you 'say' it's illegal doesn't mean squat. Yet you get to take my stuff down solely on your world.
That's the problem. Have it be a notification process whereby the poster has a week or whatever to respond BEFORE the take down and then you're much much better off civil rights wise.
Warning? No it's not a 'warning'. It's automatic removal of the content. If the ISP doesn't do that then they lose their safe harbors provision under the DMCA. The law requires take down BEFORE you can say "No it's legal". Hell all of Justin Bieber's YouTube videos were taken offline, his own legal YouTube channel over a DMCA. They were back up within a day or two, but the point is that they were taken offline through an invalid DMCA. There is no verification of fact prior to take down in the DMCA process.
Perhaps you've heard of the Indie Bundle software promos? Seems to be a smashing success since they've done like 4 or 5 of them and made thousands of bucks, for something you can legally download for free. People will support quality work, because they want more of it.
But if you're going to sue them over ever shared file for $150K a piece, well no they aren't going to support you...because sharing that file caused no significant harm and everybody knows it. When the punishment doesn't fit the crime, the general public will start to lose respect for that law and violate it routinely.
Avengers seemed to do pretty god damned well in spite of fairly widespread piracy. Why do you think that is?
It's not his fault she happens to be working for disabled children either and he looks like an ass over it.
He's still an ass, just an ass who filed 'technically valid' DMCA notices.
It's called 'Freedom of speech'. The government shall make no law abridging and all that.
It clearly abridges free speech. Which is legal until PROVEN otherwise. But here with the DMCA, that 'speech' has to be restricted until you prove you're allowed to say it when any Larry, Moe or Curly makes a claim against you.
That is flatly unconstitutional. If I could respond to a claim before the takedown say within 3 days or some other reasonable timeframe, then it's fine. But the immediate takedown notice is unconstitutional.
Then he takes the flack for taking down services for special needs kids.
He was legally in the right, but that doesn't make him a 'good guy'.
DMCA is the equivalent of me accusing you of something and putting you in prison until you prove otherwise to use the usual hyperbole tossed around.
There is no ability to challenge a DMCA. Only an ability to respond to it AFTER it has been implemented. In usual court proceedings I am granted an opportunity to refute the charge before punishment is implemented.