I think there already is a single office suite standard for Linux / Unix and it is StarOffice / OpenOffice. The main reason for this is its compatibility with MS Office is almost perfect (not quite, but almost).
I'm a technical author, and my publisher requires me to submit documents in MS Word format using a template they provide and with revision tracking features enabled. StarOffice's MS compatibility is so good that I can use it to do all of my work. My publisher can't even tell that that I am not using Word. StarOffice imports the templates with no problems and does the revision tracking with no problems either.
Basically, and Office package that is going to have any chance of becoming a Linux standard is going to have to have MS Office compatibility that is damn near perfect since almost all Linux / Unix users are going to have to share documents with Windows users running MS Office. So far, StarOffice / OpenOffice is the only package that even comes close to being MS Office compatible. It will be the standard because people can exchange documents with MS Office users and be virtually sure that there will not be problems.
Personally, I would rather see something like Abiword's format become the standard (Abiword uses XML as its native document format). This format makes it really easy to work with documents in other applications (XML modules in Perl and Python for example).
And this somehow counters the idea that you are and extremist....how?
Because ecologists recognize that we have to balance things and that we can't completely leave our hands off of the environment. Extremests generally have this incorrect idea that if humans would just leave everything alone it would take care of itself. They have a total "hands-off" approach. And ecologists recognzize that sometimes we have to manipulate things (through artificial breeding, controlled hunting, etc.)
Obviously you're not majoring in mathmatics, or history.
adlib attacks with no supporting evidence only make you look more ignorant than you have already shown yourself to be, which is something you really should avoid at this point.
You make this claim with not a single shread of supporting evidence. On the contrary, it would seem you have a weak history background. You didn't know about the deforestation in Africa and South America. You didn't know about desertification problems in Africa.
And once again, you completely ignored refuting my arguments and just used adlib attacks.
The sin of pride, again. Human beings cannot have a "permanent" effect on Earth. We're an aberation, a short-term species. Anything we could do, including total nuclear war, would be cleaned up and erased in less time than it took horses to go from three toes to one.
We sure can have a permanent effect on the earth. For example, when we cause a species to go extinct, it is gone forever. It is never going to come back. The problems created by deforestation and such are not going to go away when we are gone.
Do some research on a problem related to deforestation. It's called "desertification". The increasing range of desert is permanent. it's not going to go away.
And when people leave the area, the forests grow back. It's not the same forest, and I believe it is this that the extremist environmentalists cannot stand.
Sorry, but no they will not grow back. It's called erosion, which is a serious problem from deforestation. This can cause a PERMANENT reduction in carrying capacity of the lands. So it is still a lie.
70% of the atmosphere is nitrogen. When combustion occurs, nitrogen compounds are also created. The fact of the nitrate fertilizer from car exhaust was explained to me by the California Department of Forestry.
It doesn't matter if 90% of the atmosphere were nitrogen. Nitrogen is largely a non-reactant in the internal combustion process. Besides, if you get nitrogen product out of an internal combustion reaction, it is probably going to be NO or NO2, both of which are toxic. Sorry. You don't get any environmental benefit points for this one either.
I was speaking of the detonation of Mt. St. Helens, and the massive polutants injected all at once. I was not speaking about it today. So much for your absolute lie.
And when was the last time Mt. Saint Helens erupted? This is entirely irrelavent. Even when it does erupt, it doesn't release nearly the level of toxins that industry puts into the air every year. So this is still a lie (or an intentional distortion and misrepresentation based on desperation).
You didn't destroy the other authors statement about water being a greenhouse gas, you proved it. You yourself stated that variations in water vapor content directly effect retained heat levels.
I did destroy it. And you might want to take some advice: When you are in a hole, you won't get out by digging it deaper. The fact that you are still trying to hang on to this utterly ridiculous argument only makes you look more ignorant of the facts. Like I said, it is NOT a greenhouse gas because it cannot cause long term flucuations in temperature, and it is regulated by the saturation point of the atmosphere.
I know you don't consider yourself an extremist. Another sign that you cannot face the facts about your beliefs.
Uh huh... More like you can't face the facts you don't have the slightest understanding of these issues. Like I said, I am double majoring in ecology and chemistry. I understand these concepts infinitely better than you. And like I said, you really should drop some of these ridiculous arguments because they only show how ignorant you really are of the facts with global warming.
"Point out that the forests are now far more pleantiful than they were 100 years ago.."
This is an absolute lie. Deforestation is one of the most serious problems affecting the environment all over the world. Look at Africa! Look at South America! Where did you get this myth from?
"Point out that the nitrates being "fixed" by internal combustion engines, and the CO2 they produce at the same time, is acting as fertilizer for plant groath, they ignore it."
Where did you get the idea that nitrates are fixed by internal combustion engines? The primary products of an internal combustion reaction are CO2, H20, CO, and in some cases, S02 and S03.
I suppose you are going to try to tell me that Sulfur dioxide and Sulfur trioxide are good for the environment? I'm sure unburned hydrocarbons are good for the environment as well.
And by the way... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that deforestation + increase in CO2 production = increased atmospheric CO2 levels. Deforestation is a serious problem all over the world (result: Decreased plants for utilizing CO2), and at the same time we are producing more and more industrial emissions (result: increased CO2 levels). So basically, we are increasing the amount of CO2 emissions and at the same time, decreasing the amount of plant life that can utilize it. This is a dangerous combination.
"The extremists decry how human action is by definition bad, invasive, destructive. Point out that Mt. St. Hellens dumped far more crap into the atmosphere than humanity, they ignore it."
Another absolute lie. Mt. Saint Helens does produce greenhouse gasses, but it does not produce nearly the same amount that industry releases every year. Industries place several billion tons of CO2 into the air every year. Mt. Saint Helens doesn't even come close.
And I don't consider myself an extremest. I just consider myself someone who understands the issues. (I'm double majoring in ecology and chemistry.)
And I notice you completely failed to address the fact that I utterly destroyed your "water vapor is a greenhouse gas" argument. Like I said, that is probably one of the most desperate arguments I have ever heard.
"Not just keystone species, it's a good idea to study why any species would become extinct. A change in the inanimate environment, or in competition, is a good thing to know."
It's a good idea, but it isn't always possible unless we have an unlimitted amount of money. And research just doesn't work that way. When you want to study something, you have to apply for a grant. And for many things, it is difficult to impossible to get grants.
There are some species that are simply more important than other species in the grand scheme of things. And you are far more likely to get a grant to study why a keystone species is becoming extinct than to discover why a non-keystone species is becoming extinct.
Also, its easier to drum up support for studying why charasmatic animals like tigers and cheetahs are endangered than it is to drum up support for studying why a certain species of beatle is becoming extinct or something. People like large, charasmatic animals a lot more than they like beatles.
"You could address the fallacy. Does water vapor trap heat, yes or no? Do clouds trap heat, yes or no?"
To be perfectly honest, this is so simple I didn't think I would have to address it. But since you apparently don't understand it, here goes...
Water vapor levels vary greatly over even short time periods. And also, there is a maximum amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold. When that amount is reached, the atmosphere becomes super-saturated and it rains, thus restoring the level of water in gasous form to a lower level.
Water vapor is NOT a source of global warming because these changes are very short term and are not causing any long term increase in average temperature. Also, water vapor is not a source of global warming because vapor levels vary from one day to the next -- one night it can get down to only 75 degrees because it is relatively cloudy, and the next night it can drop down to 50 degrees because there are no clouds.
The problem with global warming is that it creates a relatively constant change. We are putting greenhouse gasses such as CO2 into the air faster than vegitation can utilize it. So unlike water vapor, this is creating a change that causes a long term (and even permanent if we don't reduce emmisions) temperature increase.
The polar ice caps are not going to melt in a day, or even a week simply because water vapor in the air is above normal for a short period of time and is trapping heat. But with greenhouse gasses such as CO2 that create a very long term change, the polar ice caps could significantly melt over a period of years.
So like I said, the idea of suggesting that water vapor is a greenhouse gas is comical, and is simply a sign of true desperation.
The problem with private conservation is that most people don't have the scientific knowledge necessary to know how to manage this stuff. But yes, private conservation can work if it is directed by knowledgable people. If someone's livelihood depends on a certain animal doing well, than they have a great deal of incentive to protect it.
But this can only work if people are willing to accept the recommendations of people who actually understand how all of these variables interact with each other to determine outcome.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase could possibly warm the earth, but it is only about 3.5 percent of all greenhouse gases. Water vapor and clouds make up over 95 percent of greenhouse gases.
Actual science? This is rkdiculous! LOL It is one of the poorest forms of rationalization I have ever heard!
The reality of this ridiculous claim of clouds and water vapor being greenhouse gasses is that it just shows how desparate certain people are to try to deny that global warming exists.
Thank you for this. I really needed a good laugh for the day.
"However, it is not "bad" that species die off. It's normal. Adaptation is normal too. The falcons nesting on the sides of tall buildings, returning to prey on pidgeons in the place that pidgeons flourish (human cities) is a really neat thing."
It depends on the species. As I said, certain species called "keystone" species can have destabalizing effects on the entire ecosystem if they die off. A good example of this is the interaction between wolves and mose at Isle Royal. You might want to look into this one. Basically, it explains how a parvovirus outbreak in the wolves caused the moose to literally eat themselves out of house and home with no predator to keep their number under control. As a result, both the moose and the wolf population crashed.
So yes, it can be "bad" when species die off. It depends on what species you are talking about though.
"Simple fact: The better adapted, or better able to adapt, survive. Weak perish. If you cannot understand that, no wonder "global warming" is still being touted as "science"."
I understand this a lot better than you obviously. And it is because of people like you that don't understand global warming that it still exists at the levels it does.
Fact: CO2 levels are rising at unprecidented rates. Another fact: the earth IS warming up. Another fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the earth's atmosphere. And one more fact: Computer models have predicted serious consequences if the warming trend continues at its current rate.
"There is nothing to worry about if species die out.."
This depends. There are some species called keystone species. If these particular species die out, they can have destabalizing effects on the entire ecosystem. The problem here is that we often don't know which species are keystone species. Also, we don't know what effects this mass extinction period we are entering will have on the planet in general. So it's best to play it cautious. (truth be known, some of the keystone species are things that no body really careas about. Like some species of bacteria).
"As for the condor one could ask whether it is a real important species in the ecosystem. Apparently it isn't."
You are probably right. The condor is probably not a keystone species, so its loss would not really have any kind of domino effect that destabalized the entire ecosystem. But people like large birds, even if they aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things.
"Simple fact: The better adapted, or better able to adapt, survive. Weak perish. If you cannot understand that, no wonder "global warming" is still being touted as "science".
ADAPT is the key word here. The individuals that are best able to ADAPT are not necessarily the strongest individuals. Make sure you make a distinction here. "Strong" and "weak" don't necessarily have anything to do with this.
I also find your blending of fields interesting. Darwin and ecology? Cause and effect. When ecological parameters change, that which can adapt to the changes survive and those which cannot die out.
Your background is even weaker than I originally thought. Don't you have any clue what Darwin discovered? Darwin discovered natural selection, which is what the whole thing you are arguing is based on. And blending fields?? Perhaps you would care to explain to me how in the world one can study ecology without studying Darwin? Darwin's principles are the major driving force in ecology. I'm not blending fields at all. Darwin's findings are central to almost all issues in ecology includign why animals go extinct, why they have certain physical and behavioral characteristics, etc.
"I would love to see how you would demonstrate that the singular cause of the Condor's demise has been industrial man."
I wouldn't say the singular cause is industrial man. But that is definiately a large part of it. More than likely, DDT played a role in this as DDT effects are cumulative throughout the food change and top predators in an ecosystem tend to have the highest levels (and receive the most damage from it).
Obviously, your background in ecology is weak to non-existant.
Your understanding of Darwin's principles is also rather weak. "The strong survive and the weak perish" is probably the most common misunderstanding of Darwin's ideas. Darwin himself corrected this many times because this is what people were saying about his ideas.
Bottom line, do some research before you comment. I mean come on... "The Origin of Species" is even available free on the Internet from multiple sites.
"(Why does genetic engineering and cloning seem as the answer to our endangered species problems. What does cloning and genetic engineering have to do with anything. The baby was born naturally, without our tampering. That is the way it should be.)"
Genetic engineering can be important because it can allow us to enhance traits that aid survival. Some endangered species are unlikely to recover unless we tamper with the genetic makeup of the population. For example, the reason the cheetah is endangered is because of a long history of inbreeding (which resulted from overhunting). This inbreeding resulted in a population of cheetahs that has a lot of health problems and very little genetic diversity (in ecology terms, this is called a genetic bottleneck). Loss of genetic diversity is bad for evolution because it leaves little for natural selection to work with. In the case of the cheetah, a large number of cubs are born with health problems and die before they reach maturity. Also, because of the loss of genetic diversity, there is nothing for natural selection to work with. So basically, there are two reasons genetic engineering and artificial breeding can be useful in preserving endangered species:
To select for the introduction and enhancement of traits that will aid survival.
To introduce more genetic diversity so that natural selection has something to work with.
Not necessarily, Well over 99.99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct because anture can't always repair itself. In fact, the ultimate fate of all species is extinction because natural selection is limited as to where it can go based on what it has done previously.
"I'm no scientist, but doesn't this mean the bird would have to mate with its siblings to continue the species? Can this be healthy?"
No, it's not healthy. Over the long term, this results in loss of genetic diversity because you basically keep recycling the same genes over and over again. This reduces the number of genes that natural selection has to work with. The result is that the population is less likely to be able to adapt to changing conditions because there isn't the diversity required to do so.
There were other condors introduced I am sure. It's just that this is the first one that has survived. But if it makes it to maturity, it will likely mate with one of the other condors that was introduced who is not related to it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think there already is a single office suite standard for Linux / Unix and it is StarOffice / OpenOffice. The main reason for this is its compatibility with MS Office is almost perfect (not quite, but almost).
I'm a technical author, and my publisher requires me to submit documents in MS Word format using a template they provide and with revision tracking features enabled. StarOffice's MS compatibility is so good that I can use it to do all of my work. My publisher can't even tell that that I am not using Word. StarOffice imports the templates with no problems and does the revision tracking with no problems either.
Basically, and Office package that is going to have any chance of becoming a Linux standard is going to have to have MS Office compatibility that is damn near perfect since almost all Linux / Unix users are going to have to share documents with Windows users running MS Office. So far, StarOffice / OpenOffice is the only package that even comes close to being MS Office compatible. It will be the standard because people can exchange documents with MS Office users and be virtually sure that there will not be problems.
Personally, I would rather see something like Abiword's format become the standard (Abiword uses XML as its native document format). This format makes it really easy to work with documents in other applications (XML modules in Perl and Python for example).
Because ecologists recognize that we have to balance things and that we can't completely leave our hands off of the environment. Extremests generally have this incorrect idea that if humans would just leave everything alone it would take care of itself. They have a total "hands-off" approach. And ecologists recognzize that sometimes we have to manipulate things (through artificial breeding, controlled hunting, etc.)
Obviously you're not majoring in mathmatics, or history.
adlib attacks with no supporting evidence only make you look more ignorant than you have already shown yourself to be, which is something you really should avoid at this point.
You make this claim with not a single shread of supporting evidence. On the contrary, it would seem you have a weak history background. You didn't know about the deforestation in Africa and South America. You didn't know about desertification problems in Africa.
And once again, you completely ignored refuting my arguments and just used adlib attacks.
We sure can have a permanent effect on the earth. For example, when we cause a species to go extinct, it is gone forever. It is never going to come back. The problems created by deforestation and such are not going to go away when we are gone.
Do some research on a problem related to deforestation. It's called "desertification". The increasing range of desert is permanent. it's not going to go away.
Sorry, but no they will not grow back. It's called erosion, which is a serious problem from deforestation. This can cause a PERMANENT reduction in carrying capacity of the lands. So it is still a lie.
70% of the atmosphere is nitrogen. When combustion occurs, nitrogen compounds are also created. The fact of the nitrate fertilizer from car exhaust was explained to me by the California Department of Forestry.
It doesn't matter if 90% of the atmosphere were nitrogen. Nitrogen is largely a non-reactant in the internal combustion process. Besides, if you get nitrogen product out of an internal combustion reaction, it is probably going to be NO or NO2, both of which are toxic. Sorry. You don't get any environmental benefit points for this one either.
I was speaking of the detonation of Mt. St. Helens, and the massive polutants injected all at once. I was not speaking about it today. So much for your absolute lie.
And when was the last time Mt. Saint Helens erupted? This is entirely irrelavent. Even when it does erupt, it doesn't release nearly the level of toxins that industry puts into the air every year. So this is still a lie (or an intentional distortion and misrepresentation based on desperation).
You didn't destroy the other authors statement about water being a greenhouse gas, you proved it. You yourself stated that variations in water vapor content directly effect retained heat levels.
I did destroy it. And you might want to take some advice: When you are in a hole, you won't get out by digging it deaper. The fact that you are still trying to hang on to this utterly ridiculous argument only makes you look more ignorant of the facts. Like I said, it is NOT a greenhouse gas because it cannot cause long term flucuations in temperature, and it is regulated by the saturation point of the atmosphere.
I know you don't consider yourself an extremist. Another sign that you cannot face the facts about your beliefs.
Uh huh... More like you can't face the facts you don't have the slightest understanding of these issues. Like I said, I am double majoring in ecology and chemistry. I understand these concepts infinitely better than you. And like I said, you really should drop some of these ridiculous arguments because they only show how ignorant you really are of the facts with global warming.
This is an absolute lie. Deforestation is one of the most serious problems affecting the environment all over the world. Look at Africa! Look at South America! Where did you get this myth from?
"Point out that the nitrates being "fixed" by internal combustion engines, and the CO2 they produce at the same time, is acting as fertilizer for plant groath, they ignore it."
Where did you get the idea that nitrates are fixed by internal combustion engines? The primary products of an internal combustion reaction are CO2, H20, CO, and in some cases, S02 and S03.
I suppose you are going to try to tell me that Sulfur dioxide and Sulfur trioxide are good for the environment? I'm sure unburned hydrocarbons are good for the environment as well.
And by the way... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that deforestation + increase in CO2 production = increased atmospheric CO2 levels. Deforestation is a serious problem all over the world (result: Decreased plants for utilizing CO2), and at the same time we are producing more and more industrial emissions (result: increased CO2 levels). So basically, we are increasing the amount of CO2 emissions and at the same time, decreasing the amount of plant life that can utilize it. This is a dangerous combination.
"The extremists decry how human action is by definition bad, invasive, destructive. Point out that Mt. St. Hellens dumped far more crap into the atmosphere than humanity, they ignore it."
Another absolute lie. Mt. Saint Helens does produce greenhouse gasses, but it does not produce nearly the same amount that industry releases every year. Industries place several billion tons of CO2 into the air every year. Mt. Saint Helens doesn't even come close.
And I don't consider myself an extremest. I just consider myself someone who understands the issues. (I'm double majoring in ecology and chemistry.)
And I notice you completely failed to address the fact that I utterly destroyed your "water vapor is a greenhouse gas" argument. Like I said, that is probably one of the most desperate arguments I have ever heard.
It's a good idea, but it isn't always possible unless we have an unlimitted amount of money. And research just doesn't work that way. When you want to study something, you have to apply for a grant. And for many things, it is difficult to impossible to get grants.
There are some species that are simply more important than other species in the grand scheme of things. And you are far more likely to get a grant to study why a keystone species is becoming extinct than to discover why a non-keystone species is becoming extinct.
Also, its easier to drum up support for studying why charasmatic animals like tigers and cheetahs are endangered than it is to drum up support for studying why a certain species of beatle is becoming extinct or something. People like large, charasmatic animals a lot more than they like beatles.
To be perfectly honest, this is so simple I didn't think I would have to address it. But since you apparently don't understand it, here goes...
Water vapor levels vary greatly over even short time periods. And also, there is a maximum amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold. When that amount is reached, the atmosphere becomes super-saturated and it rains, thus restoring the level of water in gasous form to a lower level.
Water vapor is NOT a source of global warming because these changes are very short term and are not causing any long term increase in average temperature. Also, water vapor is not a source of global warming because vapor levels vary from one day to the next -- one night it can get down to only 75 degrees because it is relatively cloudy, and the next night it can drop down to 50 degrees because there are no clouds.
The problem with global warming is that it creates a relatively constant change. We are putting greenhouse gasses such as CO2 into the air faster than vegitation can utilize it. So unlike water vapor, this is creating a change that causes a long term (and even permanent if we don't reduce emmisions) temperature increase.
The polar ice caps are not going to melt in a day, or even a week simply because water vapor in the air is above normal for a short period of time and is trapping heat. But with greenhouse gasses such as CO2 that create a very long term change, the polar ice caps could significantly melt over a period of years.
So like I said, the idea of suggesting that water vapor is a greenhouse gas is comical, and is simply a sign of true desperation.
But this can only work if people are willing to accept the recommendations of people who actually understand how all of these variables interact with each other to determine outcome.
Actual science? This is rkdiculous! LOL It is one of the poorest forms of rationalization I have ever heard!
The reality of this ridiculous claim of clouds and water vapor being greenhouse gasses is that it just shows how desparate certain people are to try to deny that global warming exists.
Thank you for this. I really needed a good laugh for the day.
It depends on the species. As I said, certain species called "keystone" species can have destabalizing effects on the entire ecosystem if they die off. A good example of this is the interaction between wolves and mose at Isle Royal. You might want to look into this one. Basically, it explains how a parvovirus outbreak in the wolves caused the moose to literally eat themselves out of house and home with no predator to keep their number under control. As a result, both the moose and the wolf population crashed.
So yes, it can be "bad" when species die off. It depends on what species you are talking about though.
I understand this a lot better than you obviously. And it is because of people like you that don't understand global warming that it still exists at the levels it does.
Fact: CO2 levels are rising at unprecidented rates. Another fact: the earth IS warming up. Another fact: CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the earth's atmosphere. And one more fact: Computer models have predicted serious consequences if the warming trend continues at its current rate.
This depends. There are some species called keystone species. If these particular species die out, they can have destabalizing effects on the entire ecosystem. The problem here is that we often don't know which species are keystone species. Also, we don't know what effects this mass extinction period we are entering will have on the planet in general. So it's best to play it cautious. (truth be known, some of the keystone species are things that no body really careas about. Like some species of bacteria).
"As for the condor one could ask whether it is a real important species in the ecosystem. Apparently it isn't."
You are probably right. The condor is probably not a keystone species, so its loss would not really have any kind of domino effect that destabalized the entire ecosystem. But people like large birds, even if they aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things.
ADAPT is the key word here. The individuals that are best able to ADAPT are not necessarily the strongest individuals. Make sure you make a distinction here. "Strong" and "weak" don't necessarily have anything to do with this.
I also find your blending of fields interesting. Darwin and ecology? Cause and effect. When ecological parameters change, that which can adapt to the changes survive and those which cannot die out.
Your background is even weaker than I originally thought. Don't you have any clue what Darwin discovered? Darwin discovered natural selection, which is what the whole thing you are arguing is based on. And blending fields?? Perhaps you would care to explain to me how in the world one can study ecology without studying Darwin? Darwin's principles are the major driving force in ecology. I'm not blending fields at all. Darwin's findings are central to almost all issues in ecology includign why animals go extinct, why they have certain physical and behavioral characteristics, etc.
"I would love to see how you would demonstrate that the singular cause of the Condor's demise has been industrial man."
I wouldn't say the singular cause is industrial man. But that is definiately a large part of it. More than likely, DDT played a role in this as DDT effects are cumulative throughout the food change and top predators in an ecosystem tend to have the highest levels (and receive the most damage from it).
Your understanding of Darwin's principles is also rather weak. "The strong survive and the weak perish" is probably the most common misunderstanding of Darwin's ideas. Darwin himself corrected this many times because this is what people were saying about his ideas.
Bottom line, do some research before you comment. I mean come on... "The Origin of Species" is even available free on the Internet from multiple sites.
Genetic engineering can be important because it can allow us to enhance traits that aid survival. Some endangered species are unlikely to recover unless we tamper with the genetic makeup of the population. For example, the reason the cheetah is endangered is because of a long history of inbreeding (which resulted from overhunting). This inbreeding resulted in a population of cheetahs that has a lot of health problems and very little genetic diversity (in ecology terms, this is called a genetic bottleneck). Loss of genetic diversity is bad for evolution because it leaves little for natural selection to work with. In the case of the cheetah, a large number of cubs are born with health problems and die before they reach maturity. Also, because of the loss of genetic diversity, there is nothing for natural selection to work with. So basically, there are two reasons genetic engineering and artificial breeding can be useful in preserving endangered species:
"If we leave it alone long enough."
Not necessarily, Well over 99.99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct because anture can't always repair itself. In fact, the ultimate fate of all species is extinction because natural selection is limited as to where it can go based on what it has done previously.
"I'm no scientist, but doesn't this mean the bird would have to mate with its siblings to continue the species? Can this be healthy?"
No, it's not healthy. Over the long term, this results in loss of genetic diversity because you basically keep recycling the same genes over and over again. This reduces the number of genes that natural selection has to work with. The result is that the population is less likely to be able to adapt to changing conditions because there isn't the diversity required to do so.
There were other condors introduced I am sure. It's just that this is the first one that has survived. But if it makes it to maturity, it will likely mate with one of the other condors that was introduced who is not related to it.