I see what you're saying: We have no idea what's killing the bees, so we should just blame the corporations. We already blame everything else on them anyway.
Also, you seem to think Wal-mart's CFL initiative was to remove incandescents from its shelves. I'm pretty sure it was to make the CFL's that are already on the shelves cheeper.
More recent studies using a species of algae with up to 50% oil content have concluded that only 28,000 km or 0.3% of the land area of the US could be utilized to produce enough biodiesel to replace all transportation fuel the country currently utilizes.
The problem is that those high oil content varieties of algae are less competitive than the more common types that are more like 10% oil content. The algae would have to be grown in a controlled environment in order to keep low oil content algae from taking over, which would be way too expensive. Just growing the low content algae would be cheeper, but it would still not be economical.
They would have to genetically engineer high oil content algae that is still competitive with normal algae even though it doesn't grow as quickly because it is using more energy producing oil and less reproducing.
They summary says that the world is running out of Uranium. But the article it sites is saying a larger investment in Uranium production has to be made now in order to avoid short-term cost increases. It doesn't say anything about the actual amount of mine-able uranium in the ground.
The first thing I did after reading the summary was check my calendar. April 1 is still a week away though. Maybe they're just trying to get ahead in the April fools market.
The second picture looks like it has been narrowed by about 10%. The eyebrow isn't as noticeable if you restore the image to its original aspect ratio.
The trouble, such as it was, was that nothing was ready to announce
They do have the Apple TV and the AirPort Extreme both shipping in February. Apple didn't even announce the new AirPort in the keynote. Apple tends to release consumer devices at Macworld and operating systems at WWDC. So they announced their new gadgets at Macworld, and they'll announce their new OS at WWDC in a few months.
The evidence for human caused global warming is pretty strong. But hypothesis about the effect of global warming on the environment are not nearly as strongly supported.
The claims are that global warming will cause: ocean levels to rise, droughts, flooding, stronger storms, ect. These changes will be such a catastrophe for the human race that we must prevent global warming from happening at all costs. People who disagree with these catastrophic predictions are labeled deniers even if they believe global warming is anthropogenic. People who argue that adaption rather than prevention would be a better way of dealing with warming are labeled deniers even if they believe global warming is anthropogenic. There needs to be debate and discussion about how best to deal with global warming.
P.S. Your post reminds me of a quote from the movie Canadian Bacon: "Gentlemen there is a time to think and there is a time to act...and this is no time to think."
How many people are going to realize many phones have been doing the majority of this stuff for years...
It's interesting that phones have had these features for years, and even though I know people who have smart phones I've never actually seen someone send an e-mail or surf the internet using a cell-phone.
Nintendo produces games like bowling and baseball where people are making throwing motions with the (motion sensing) remote. Are they really amazed that it could slip from a person's hand and go flying?
So how long until they sue companies for making baseball bats that can slip out of peoples hands?
But water can be stored by building dams. And I believe China, which is where most of the people who would be effected live, already has a lot of dams for flood control and power generation.
a significant fraction of the world relies on the glaciers in the Himalayas for water. If those go, there will be vastly less habitable lands.
The water doesn't have to come from glaciers, as long as there is precipitation in the mountains there will be water downstream. Global warming would only result in less arable land if it makes the world dryer overall, but most simulations show the world getting wetter if it gets hotter.
Are you kidding? That article says that Carbon dating is inaccurate because it doesn't take into account the massive cloud of water vapor used by some theologians to explain the Great Flood as depicted in the Bible. The author goes on to say that no carbon-14 would remain after 10 half lives, which indicates that he has no idea what a half-life is.
Scientists never said C-14 dating was 100% accurate. Carbon-14 is formed in the atmosphere when cosmic radiation reacts with Nitrogen. The accuracy if carbon dating depends on how constant the amount of nitrogen in the air is, and how much cosmic radiation hits the atmosphere. Neither of those things are likely to have changed very much in the last 60,000 years.
Why would an oil company sell gas in California when they can sell it elsewhere and make more money? These days there's a lot of demand for oil in places other than the USA.
This kind of thing has already happened in Canada, where a farmer got done for storing seed from "Deadly Poison Ready" wheat that had grown from cross-pollination from a neighbour's field.
If you're referring to this case then you've been mislead. Monsanto won the case by showing that the farmer had deliberately planted roundup-ready canola.
So instead of hiring people to go and painstakingly remove all the weeds from your fields, you just repeatedly spray your fields with herbicides. In other words, with GM farming you're actually using more chemicals than traditional farming.
That depends on how you define 'traditional'. Most non-GM farmers still use herbicides. They just use different ones that target specific types of weeds, rather than herbicides that kill all non-Roundup Ready plants.
Federal information shows that although light trucks account for one-third of all registered vehicles, traffic crashes between a light truck and any other vehicle now account for the majority of fatalities in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions.
Statistically if 1/3 of vehicles are light trucks then 1 - 4/9 or about 56% of crashes should involve a light truck.
Maybe the companies that are in a bad position are willing to pay more to get a good CEO. But just hiring a 'good' CEO won't put the company in a good position.
I'm sure your post made valid points, but if I see a post that starts with "Bzzt, wrong." I tend to stop reading and move on. It just seems like a very obnoxious and arrogant thing to type.
US cars travelled a combined total of 1.793 billion miles There were about 43,000 [car related deaths]last year.
That would make about one death every 40,000 miles, my car has about 170,000 miles on it. If those numbers are right I would be expected to have killed 4 people with my car in the 14 years I've owned it.
new law has been constructed that pretty much guarantees that Ethanol will replace the previous 10% by volume oxygenate. Problem is, Ethanol gets something like 20% worse mileage than MTBU (Ethanol 76,000 btu/gallon, MTBE 93,500 btu/gallon, US gas 115,000 btu/gallon). Work out the math and you see that once again, the oil industry wins big time.
Ok,
10% Ethanol / 90% gas: 76,000 x 10% + 115,000 x 90% = 111,100 btu/gallon
10% MTBE / 90% gas: 93,500 x 10% + 115,000 x 90% = 112,850 btu/gallon
So using gas mixed with ethanol would give you about 1.5% fewer MPG then using gas mixed with MTBE. Also the lower energy/volume of ethanol comes from ethanol having a lower density than gas, so using ethanol instead of gas would not significantly increase air pollution. According to wikipedia the oxygenate requirement was dropped from federal law in 2005, however some states still have laws requiring it.
Slashdot Mirror
I see what you're saying: We have no idea what's killing the bees, so we should just blame the corporations. We already blame everything else on them anyway.
Also, you seem to think Wal-mart's CFL initiative was to remove incandescents from its shelves. I'm pretty sure it was to make the CFL's that are already on the shelves cheeper.
More recent studies using a species of algae with up to 50% oil content have concluded that only 28,000 km or 0.3% of the land area of the US could be utilized to produce enough biodiesel to replace all transportation fuel the country currently utilizes.
The problem is that those high oil content varieties of algae are less competitive than the more common types that are more like 10% oil content. The algae would have to be grown in a controlled environment in order to keep low oil content algae from taking over, which would be way too expensive. Just growing the low content algae would be cheeper, but it would still not be economical.
They would have to genetically engineer high oil content algae that is still competitive with normal algae even though it doesn't grow as quickly because it is using more energy producing oil and less reproducing.
They summary says that the world is running out of Uranium. But the article it sites is saying a larger investment in Uranium production has to be made now in order to avoid short-term cost increases. It doesn't say anything about the actual amount of mine-able uranium in the ground.
The first thing I did after reading the summary was check my calendar. April 1 is still a week away though. Maybe they're just trying to get ahead in the April fools market.
I know that if I had a daughter I'd rather see her get cancer than risk giving her the impression that sex is OK.
The second picture looks like it has been narrowed by about 10%. The eyebrow isn't as noticeable if you restore the image to its original aspect ratio.
The trouble, such as it was, was that nothing was ready to announce
They do have the Apple TV and the AirPort Extreme both shipping in February. Apple didn't even announce the new AirPort in the keynote. Apple tends to release consumer devices at Macworld and operating systems at WWDC. So they announced their new gadgets at Macworld, and they'll announce their new OS at WWDC in a few months.
The evidence for human caused global warming is pretty strong. But hypothesis about the effect of global warming on the environment are not nearly as strongly supported.
The claims are that global warming will cause: ocean levels to rise, droughts, flooding, stronger storms, ect. These changes will be such a catastrophe for the human race that we must prevent global warming from happening at all costs. People who disagree with these catastrophic predictions are labeled deniers even if they believe global warming is anthropogenic. People who argue that adaption rather than prevention would be a better way of dealing with warming are labeled deniers even if they believe global warming is anthropogenic. There needs to be debate and discussion about how best to deal with global warming.
P.S. Your post reminds me of a quote from the movie Canadian Bacon:
"Gentlemen there is a time to think and there is a time to act...and this is no time to think."
How about 2 and 5.
How about "Woman dies in competition for Wii". That's shorter, more accurate and not misleading.
How many people are going to realize many phones have been doing the majority of this stuff for years...
It's interesting that phones have had these features for years, and even though I know people who have smart phones I've never actually seen someone send an e-mail or surf the internet using a cell-phone.
Nintendo produces games like bowling and baseball where people are making throwing motions with the (motion sensing) remote. Are they really amazed that it could slip from a person's hand and go flying?
So how long until they sue companies for making baseball bats that can slip out of peoples hands?
But water can be stored by building dams. And I believe China, which is where most of the people who would be effected live, already has a lot of dams for flood control and power generation.
a significant fraction of the world relies on the glaciers in the Himalayas for water. If those go, there will be vastly less habitable lands.
The water doesn't have to come from glaciers, as long as there is precipitation in the mountains there will be water downstream. Global warming would only result in less arable land if it makes the world dryer overall, but most simulations show the world getting wetter if it gets hotter.
Are you kidding? That article says that Carbon dating is inaccurate because it doesn't take into account the massive cloud of water vapor used by some theologians to explain the Great Flood as depicted in the Bible. The author goes on to say that no carbon-14 would remain after 10 half lives, which indicates that he has no idea what a half-life is.
Scientists never said C-14 dating was 100% accurate. Carbon-14 is formed in the atmosphere when cosmic radiation reacts with Nitrogen. The accuracy if carbon dating depends on how constant the amount of nitrogen in the air is, and how much cosmic radiation hits the atmosphere. Neither of those things are likely to have changed very much in the last 60,000 years.
Why would an oil company sell gas in California when they can sell it elsewhere and make more money? These days there's a lot of demand for oil in places other than the USA.
They are taking it for the specific purpose of getting other students in trouble.
They are keeping a copy of your work so that another person can't take credit for it. That's something most artists would probably support.
the ship will undertake the first motorized crossing of the Atlantic without using a drop of gasoline
Except for all the nuclear powered ships and submarines.
This kind of thing has already happened in Canada, where a farmer got done for storing seed from "Deadly Poison Ready" wheat that had grown from cross-pollination from a neighbour's field.
If you're referring to this case then you've been mislead. Monsanto won the case by showing that the farmer had deliberately planted roundup-ready canola.
So instead of hiring people to go and painstakingly remove all the weeds from your fields, you just repeatedly spray your fields with herbicides. In other words, with GM farming you're actually using more chemicals than traditional farming.
That depends on how you define 'traditional'. Most non-GM farmers still use herbicides. They just use different ones that target specific types of weeds, rather than herbicides that kill all non-Roundup Ready plants.
Federal information shows that although light trucks account for one-third of all registered vehicles, traffic crashes between a light truck and any other vehicle now account for the majority of fatalities in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions.
Statistically if 1/3 of vehicles are light trucks then 1 - 4/9 or about 56% of crashes should involve a light truck.
Maybe the companies that are in a bad position are willing to pay more to get a good CEO. But just hiring a 'good' CEO won't put the company in a good position.
Bzzt, wrong.
I'm sure your post made valid points, but if I see a post that starts with "Bzzt, wrong." I tend to stop reading and move on. It just seems like a very obnoxious and arrogant thing to type.
US cars travelled a combined total of 1.793 billion miles
There were about 43,000 [car related deaths]last year.
That would make about one death every 40,000 miles, my car has about 170,000 miles on it. If those numbers are right I would be expected to have killed 4 people with my car in the 14 years I've owned it.
new law has been constructed that pretty much guarantees that Ethanol will replace the previous 10% by volume oxygenate. Problem is, Ethanol gets something like 20% worse mileage than MTBU (Ethanol 76,000 btu/gallon, MTBE 93,500 btu/gallon, US gas 115,000 btu/gallon). Work out the math and you see that once again, the oil industry wins big time.
Ok,
10% Ethanol / 90% gas: 76,000 x 10% + 115,000 x 90% = 111,100 btu/gallon
10% MTBE / 90% gas: 93,500 x 10% + 115,000 x 90% = 112,850 btu/gallon
So using gas mixed with ethanol would give you about 1.5% fewer MPG then using gas mixed with MTBE. Also the lower energy/volume of ethanol comes from ethanol having a lower density than gas, so using ethanol instead of gas would not significantly increase air pollution. According to wikipedia the oxygenate requirement was dropped from federal law in 2005, however some states still have laws requiring it.