It's not like developing an antitoxin is equivelent to putting a man on Mars.
An antitoxin for all affected species?
Why is it that ecological niches are always considered to be a binary yes-no system? Two predators can co-exist in the same area, provided that resources are abundant enough for both to survive. Also, why is it always assumed the only the NEs will die off at the pressures of the GMs? It's certainly possible that the reverse will happen.
Yes, but GMs are made to be more resiliant than their NE counterparts.
3) Genetic monoculture susceptible to parasites and climate
And?
GM crops might attract new bugs. Ihen again, they are made to withstand more poison dumped on them, so that shouldn't be a short term issue.
4) Hubristic scientists playing God calling down the wrath of Heaven
You call this a scientifically valid reason?
I take it you don't believe in a God that doesn't like competition.
So the first time we crossed horses and donkeys to get mules, the environment should have collapsed and God should have rained vengeful wrath down upon us, right?
Didn't you not believe in a God that doesn't like competition?
Give me a break. Go read some real science, unaltered by religious dogma, and then get back to me.
I don't know about you, but I used to study the TV guide and plan which interesting things to watch, and if they sucked I'd change the channel or do something else.
The web however, has interesting things 24/7 at an unpredictable shedual.
*terminal junkie*
Re:One problem with wind farms
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1
just about every kind of foundation is bad for the environment.
Make it an artificial reef if you have subway cars to spare.;)
I think the best energy source is biomass. And I don't mean the ancient stuff like oil and coal (even though bacteria can eat away the most harmful stuff in that).
All sentences that say exactly what this one says are true.
But to stay on the topic that isn't displayed on this reply page, I think it would be a nice idea to include a webserver so one doesn't have to search the www to find nearby stores.
There are way too damned many people as it is anyway...
this amy be true, but reducing the number of people will cause more problems than it solves. Look at what happened during the 14th century in europe: Plague killed off ~20 % of the population. People starved to death because they were too sick to plow the field, and there werent enough well people to make up the difference
Firstly, disease spreads faster in densely populated areas. Secondly, 20% is a ratio, it doesn't matter how big the population is. Less living = less mouths to feed. As for the fields: It is wise to keep emergency supplies. Plus a private veggie garden shouldn't be too much hassle to maintain.
Even given all that, declining populations cant support growing ecconomies without miraculous increases in productivity, and increases in productivity arent as likely because there are simply less people to be innovative and come up with new ideas.
Why would the economy need to grow while the population declines? A plagued country is not in a position to sell goods anyway. New ideas are not necessary for an increase in productivity. Doing things in bulk isn't new.
Slashdot Mirror
All you profit belong to Natalie Portman's Beowulf cluster of hot grits that obey the laws of physics in Soviet Russia!
Industrial hemp has many uses. And all MJ sites I've seen seem knowledgeable enough to know it's not worth smoking.
When life gives you algae, make algae paper.
...Are they ill-tempered?
An antitoxin for all affected species?
Why is it that ecological niches are always considered to be a binary yes-no system? Two predators can co-exist in the same area, provided that resources are abundant enough for both to survive. Also, why is it always assumed the only the NEs will die off at the pressures of the GMs? It's certainly possible that the reverse will happen.
Yes, but GMs are made to be more resiliant than their NE counterparts.
And?
GM crops might attract new bugs. Ihen again, they are made to withstand more poison dumped on them, so that shouldn't be a short term issue.
You call this a scientifically valid reason?
I take it you don't believe in a God that doesn't like competition.
So the first time we crossed horses and donkeys to get mules, the environment should have collapsed and God should have rained vengeful wrath down upon us, right?
Didn't you not believe in a God that doesn't like competition?
Give me a break. Go read some real science, unaltered by religious dogma, and then get back to me.
Getting personal and ignoring the other points.
Your anecdote doesn't disprove the general rule.
passively consuming content.
I don't know about you, but I used to study the TV guide and plan which interesting things to watch, and if they sucked I'd change the channel or do something else.
The web however, has interesting things 24/7 at an unpredictable shedual.
*terminal junkie*
just about every kind of foundation is bad for the environment.
;)
Make it an artificial reef if you have subway cars to spare.
I think the best energy source is biomass. And I don't mean the ancient stuff like oil and coal (even though bacteria can eat away the most harmful stuff in that).
All sentences that say exactly what this one says are true.
But to stay on the topic that isn't displayed on this reply page, I think it would be a nice idea to include a webserver so one doesn't have to search the www to find nearby stores.
why do we live alot longer these days than we did before?
Less labor, better medicine, and better hygiene.
that many people to afford heat in the winter, or lights under which to read,
Don't you mean computers and refrigerators?
I suppose stoves and candles aren't hip enough anymore.
The bodyheat argument sucks as there are plenty of better ways to generate heat.
If not for using our brains, I think the machines just like to learn from us.
Turn your waste into hydrogen instead of supplying potential dirty bombs to everyone.
Actually, 1024 is a kibi.
I think he meant to say that human brains make up stuff. Some more than others.
Firstly, disease spreads faster in densely populated areas.
Secondly, 20% is a ratio, it doesn't matter how big the population is. Less living = less mouths to feed.
As for the fields: It is wise to keep emergency supplies. Plus a private veggie garden shouldn't be too much hassle to maintain.
Even given all that, declining populations cant support growing ecconomies without miraculous increases in productivity, and increases in productivity arent as likely because there are simply less people to be innovative and come up with new ideas.
Why would the economy need to grow while the population declines? A plagued country is not in a position to sell goods anyway.
New ideas are not necessary for an increase in productivity. Doing things in bulk isn't new.
Google to the rescue. If you're finished with that domain, try a search for "90s tv".
There's links to the 70s and 90s. :)
http://www.inthe80s.com/
You might like Wpoison.
It seems to work for me. And if they query the wrong person, they can solve the relay problem and both be thankful.
But the DNS registrar data should contain valid data as well, and I don't mail to fishy domains.
That was #5869911, become a subscriber. :P
What's wrong with viewing the full headers and sending a mail to abuse@lastvaliddomain.com?
I don't think so. The halting problem seems to deal with chaotic simulations that don't have error catching.