Which is why paper recycling is not very good for the environment either. If you get paper that is grown directly from trees, then the carbon inside the paper was taken from the atmosphere, and then locked into solid waste where it is kept out of the atmosphere. If you use recycled paper, this doesn't happen.
Also, recycling plastic is bad, because the more plastic you create, the less oil is available to burn and get into the atmosphere.
Wasting food is good for the environment, except in certain cases where the food production involves the creation of methane (as for beef). this is because you are causing more food to be grown which ultimately takes more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and some it eventually becomes oil and gets trapped back in the earth.
So if two masses that are bigger than the earth orbit each other and are about the same size, does this mean that one of them must be a moon of the other?
Oops, I meant to say "I would still be correct if the amount of carbon thrown into the air making paper is less then the amount of carbon that is not be released into the atmosphere when the paper decomposes."
If paper recycling required more use of other resources than making new paper, then you would probably be correct. Not true, I would still be correct if the amount of carbon thrown into the air making paper is more then the amount of carbon that is not be released into the atmosphere when the paper decomposes. By recycling a piece of paper, and reusing it, you've still just got one piece of paper's worth of carbon not floating around in the air. By manufacturing and using two pieces of paper, now you've got twice as much carbon, that would otherwise be floating around in the air!(that is, not sucked up by the trees to produce the carbon).
Also, growing young trees converts less carbon than that taken by mature trees. If you say so, but that is besides the point. Either the carbon is taken from the air and converted to paper (through the use of trees) or it isn't. If its not, then its still floating in the air.
Two pieces of paper worth of carbon out of the atmosphere is a net win over one piece of paper's worth of carbon out of the atmosphere.
Would canceling all paper recycling programs help prevent global warming? By using and throwing away more paper, more trees are grown which suck the carbon dioxide out of the air. The resulting carbon trapped in paper is then trapped in landfills, which is obviously better than having it floating around in the air.
What about canceling plastic recycling as well? If you are sucking oil out of the ground from a limited supply, then by converting more of that limited supply to plastic rather then burning it would mean that a lower percentage of the total oil available in the earth would be burned and then released into the air.
(BTW, any and all replies to this comment will be printed individually on single side, non-recycled, legal size paper, and then immediately tossed...)
No, it's the fact that google uses geocoding to figure out what country you're in, and they redirect you to the site you're most likely to find useful. I've never been behind the great firewall, but I'm quite confident anyone can access a google site for any locale.
Then I respond showing evidence that China does block google.com. Then you tell me that China is also probably blocking elgoog. The point I was trying to make is that China does block google.com, it was evil of google to block it, and that refutes your previous statement, "Is the result of most Chinese users only seeing the.cn version of the site a result of some government or corporate action, or is it simply because most Chinese speak and read only Chinese?"
And now you reverse yourself, and ask me how long before I think that China will block elgoog.com as well as google.com. Do you have a position, or are you simply trying to nitpick my own?
Is the result of most Chinese users only seeing the.cn version of the site a result of some government or corporate action, or is it simply because most Chinese speak and read only Chinese?
No, it's the result of China's firewall redirecting to google.cn
Fong said that the company is banking on this attachment to keep users shelling out the monthly subscription fee for the service because failing to do so will result in the pet dying.
If this doesn't show the cold dark heart of a corporation that peddles to children, then I don't know what does.
Actually, in some ways these pump and dump scams, along with 419 scams are good. By using email spam to scam more people then ever before, they are educating the masses in the most direct way you most possibly could.
You don't need to reconstruct the original. Just scramble the watermark. Two copies is enough to do this. Just find the differing bits, randomize them, and you're done.
But it will be removed. This will not be a hard problem to solve, since by just grabbing two files and seeing where they differ and randomizing those bits, you have just scrambled the watermark.
Oh I see, a "Massive Multiplayer Online" is like a "Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game", except without the "Role Playing Game" and only for a single player.. and you said something about morons?
The day will come when outages of big commercial services on the cloud are as unusual as outages in the phone system or the electricity supply system.
And I predict that the outages of commercial services on the cloud will always remain slightly higher than the outages of the electricity supply system...
It seems that no one so far has understood the main point of the article. Its not that Bayer's GM rice is infecting non-GM rice, but an unreleased GM rice that Bayer was still working on and was not approved by the FDA, yet, has infected Bayer's already approved GM rice that was sold to farmers.
In other words, Bayer can't keep the unapproved and approved strains separate when they sell their GM products to the general public. **shudder**
Along with the rejection of net-neutrality, this could be construed as a push by the corporations to take back the internet from individuals. The more red tape and legal traps they can set for the unaware individual when posting something to the internet, the less people will voluntarily risk posting.
The reason the corporations would want this is to prevent people speaking out against them or offering free or almost free services that the they could have offered for a fee. Which would be more beneficial to corporations, an internet like it is today, or an internet like the mobile phone networks?
When you use bittorrent, you are downloading as well as uploading. That's how they keep the bandwidth up, and why more peers usually means a faster download.
They don't need to grab the servers to get the ip's. PirateBay's servers will give you the ip's if you just ask it. That's how a bittorrent tracker works.
<Quote>But I suspect that even if a dynamic physics model suggests cow tipping is possible, the biology ultimately gets in the way: a cow is simply not a rigid, unresponding body.</Quote>
They seem to be arguing that a non-rigid cow would make it more difficult rather than less, implying that the Doctor of Zoology, ahem, and her student didn't understand the leg swaying issue when applying their knowledge of physics.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, recycling plastic is bad, because the more plastic you create, the less oil is available to burn and get into the atmosphere.
Wasting food is good for the environment, except in certain cases where the food production involves the creation of methane (as for beef). this is because you are causing more food to be grown which ultimately takes more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and some it eventually becomes oil and gets trapped back in the earth.
So if two masses that are bigger than the earth orbit each other and are about the same size, does this mean that one of them must be a moon of the other?
Wouldn't marbles released into space far enough away from a planet to orbit a star fall under your classification as planets?
Oops, I meant to say "I would still be correct if the amount of carbon thrown into the air making paper is less then the amount of carbon that is not be released into the atmosphere when the paper decomposes."
Two pieces of paper worth of carbon out of the atmosphere is a net win over one piece of paper's worth of carbon out of the atmosphere.
What about canceling plastic recycling as well? If you are sucking oil out of the ground from a limited supply, then by converting more of that limited supply to plastic rather then burning it would mean that a lower percentage of the total oil available in the earth would be burned and then released into the air.
(BTW, any and all replies to this comment will be printed individually on single side, non-recycled, legal size paper, and then immediately tossed...)
First, you write:
.cn version of the site a result of some government or corporate action, or is it simply because most Chinese speak and read only Chinese?"
No, it's the fact that google uses geocoding to figure out what country you're in, and they redirect you to the site you're most likely to find useful. I've never been behind the great firewall, but I'm quite confident anyone can access a google site for any locale.
Then I respond showing evidence that China does block google.com. Then you tell me that China is also probably blocking elgoog. The point I was trying to make is that China does block google.com, it was evil of google to block it, and that refutes your previous statement, "Is the result of most Chinese users only seeing the
And now you reverse yourself, and ask me how long before I think that China will block elgoog.com as well as google.com. Do you have a position, or are you simply trying to nitpick my own?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElgooG
No, it's the result of China's firewall redirecting to google.cn
Client side, that is true. Server side, its just as fast or sometimes faster. See http://kano.net/javabench/ and http://www.aceshardware.com/Spades/read.php?articl e_id=153
If this doesn't show the cold dark heart of a corporation that peddles to children, then I don't know what does.
Actually, in some ways these pump and dump scams, along with 419 scams are good. By using email spam to scam more people then ever before, they are educating the masses in the most direct way you most possibly could.
You don't need to reconstruct the original. Just scramble the watermark. Two copies is enough to do this. Just find the differing bits, randomize them, and you're done.
But it will be removed. This will not be a hard problem to solve, since by just grabbing two files and seeing where they differ and randomizing those bits, you have just scrambled the watermark.
It doesn't affect non-copyrighted works being broadcasted, so it won't have a "CHILLING EFFECT"
Oh I see, a "Massive Multiplayer Online" is like a "Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game", except without the "Role Playing Game" and only for a single player.. and you said something about morons?
What is a single player mmo?
Does it bother anyone else that the author uses "will" rather than "would" for all his predictions?
In other words, Bayer can't keep the unapproved and approved strains separate when they sell their GM products to the general public. **shudder**
The reason the corporations would want this is to prevent people speaking out against them or offering free or almost free services that the they could have offered for a fee. Which would be more beneficial to corporations, an internet like it is today, or an internet like the mobile phone networks?
When you use bittorrent, you are downloading as well as uploading. That's how they keep the bandwidth up, and why more peers usually means a faster download.
They don't need to grab the servers to get the ip's. PirateBay's servers will give you the ip's if you just ask it. That's how a bittorrent tracker works.
Yea, the price of gold has just been plummeting. Avoided a horrible financial death there..
<Quote>But I suspect that even if a dynamic physics model suggests cow tipping is possible, the biology ultimately gets in the way: a cow is simply not a rigid, unresponding body.</Quote>
They seem to be arguing that a non-rigid cow would make it more difficult rather than less, implying that the Doctor of Zoology, ahem, and her student didn't understand the leg swaying issue when applying their knowledge of physics.