Much of the carbon was sourced from other countries, so they profited and thereby enabled the production of greenhouse gases as well. The USA has assuredly done both, but if the carbon producers, such as the Mideast, quit selling oil and coal, they could also control the amount of greenhouse gases emitted through supply reduction.
Much of the planet has benefitted from the industry and agriculture that the US and other industrial nations have provided through the use of carbon.
If the USA was located in a more temperate climate and had less area to travel over, then transportation and heating/cooling carbon emissions would be vastly reduced. Comparing other countries, that are smaller and featuring less demanding climates, to the US is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
But we are too far down this path, without incredible efforts on our part, which I do not see happening in today's political climate, Mother Earth's natural temperature regulatory processes will dominate, but will they be enough that we will survive?
It used to be that Apple did things well, and did the UI with a consistency, but that is a thing of the past. For example, Steve Jobs would not have allowed the myriad of touch keyboards I find on my ipad, iphone, ipod—the whole point of the ToolBox was to keep a uniform user interface. Its operating systems have become a mess, ease of use and organization have been slowly diminishing for a long while now, but thank heaven that unix is still there, sort of.
This is probably because people with bad hearts, etc., do not drink coffee, hence only people who are healthier drink coffee when they are old. Isn't it amazing that they would have a reduced death rate. Imagine what the relative death rate would be for old people who skydive, compared to those who don't?
1. He wasn't writing this, he was describing it on Donahue, during an interview. It is too long ago for me to recall if he was hawking a book, but I don't believe that he was.
2. There are a gazillion items surrounding us today that would have elicited a similar "fecal" remark 100 years ago, let alone 100,000 years ago. Just as a "for instance", contemplate strands of nanotubes, metallically sealed, perhaps in a honeycomb structure, perhaps bonded through a metallic core. Even if the strength of each strand was slight, imagine 10^15 strands. Might be quite strong, lightweight, and thin? But I suppose a bigger issue is that we cannot fly about as UFOs are described. But what about in 500 years? 10,000? 100,000?
As for reliability, the missile silo guys are vetted more than just about anyone in the country.
Too many reliable individuals have seen UFOs for there not to be something going on. Donahue had a retired Major on the program in about 1979-1980 who described picking up dead bodies of small, alien looking individuals at Rosswell. He also described picking up a piece of metal, thin as aluminum foil, but he couldn't dent it with a sledgehammer.
Ahh, but then you have the submarine attack by terrorists! One throws a molotov cocktail at it (slingshoted) and watch it burn up. The longest fire ever made!
For me (dedicated Mac user since 3/1985) I have scads of software that I have purchased. To re-purchase this stuff that will be available will be expensive, adding onto the rather high price that I am expecting apple to charge for the intel macs, compared to the pc selling price at that moment. And after I've upgraded to the Intel system box, then the ability to access files will undoubtedly go away on some of my legacy items. I've already dealt with some of these issues, having software that quit working when os 7 came out.
This consideration is a real issue for me, because until there is the intel setup available, G5s are the only route to upgrade. I daresay that I'll be buying a G5 soon, and then using my G5, G4 and G3 until the cows come home, or until I can no longer justify having such a "slow" processor as my G5. I think if I avoid gaming, that point will never come.
It is a trade off of cost for a new machine AND new software, which typically costs more than the machine, if you do anything useful.
And then there is the consideration of cutting edge or not--I remember working on designing a PCI 2.0 circuit card in 1996, a standard that Apple is YET to support (unless they've slipped it into a G5 lately without my knowledge). Apple's PCI bus has been 33 Mhz, although my g3 had one 66 Mhz bus for the video card.
And the other issue is that I've had issues with the design of each mac I've owned (original Mac, IIsi, B&W G3, and G4) with faulty design or bad hardware.
So this changeover is NOT gonna be an "I'll follow old Stevey Jobs down whatever road he goes" decision. If someone comes out with something better, I'll go for it.
But, on the other hand, I sure do like the BSD Unix underpinnings.
Look at it this way: If Apple was mad at IBM because they weren't getting enough sales because their processor speed wasn't fast enough, it doesn't make any sense to announce that they are going Intel, which seems to be a much better method of kaboshing their sales.
Perhaps in the long term they will do well with increased sales, but this article rings true, it's all about money.
And as far as this dedicated Apple user, the reason I've been dedicated is because I was using a bunch of legacy software, but Apple has solved that problem!
Picture Mel Brooks on a wooden table, yelling, "FREEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!"
I might stay with the Mac, it's os is good, but it will be because I choose to. And I think the best option for me is to buy a new G5 is six months or so, then use it for 10 years and blow off the future improvements.
There is a free version of it, nearly full up in capability, called Nightlight.
Not yet for OS X, but works under OS X Classic and straight Mac OS's.
Good typesetting capability, compatible with the NoteScan application, which can scan sheet music into a file which can be imported by the full up version of Nightingale. (I have notescan, it works pretty well).
The free version, Nightlight is quite good, by the way, with only a few limitations: the size of a score, and won't import the NoteScan files, perhaps some other items.
This is not a black and white issue. Shades of grey run rampant.
It is a real problem, since there is the precedent of libraries having made copyrighted material available to anyone who wanted to read, listen, view, copy, etc, for scores and scores of years.
Is it illegal to lend a cd to someone? And if not, in what manner can something be lent to someone? Can you read a book, then discuss and provide the detailed information in that book. As a fiddler, I often learn tunes from books, then I share that tune with another? Using the RIAA's viewpoint, you would be in violation of copyright, since it is transmission of musical information outside of their money earning.
If a law makes *everyone* a criminal, that law is bogus.
If one were to take the RIAA's stance on everything, I would be in violation of the copyright, merely PLAYING a fiddle tune I learned from a copyrighted book, unless royalties were paid.
So you cannot say that you can only provide that information to another if you provide the original form (CD, tape, record, DVD, photograph), since we have, for decades, circumvented that procedure in our schools, living rooms, political discussions, etc. Once you have information in your head, does it cease to become copyrighted?
Likewise, when you put a melody on a network, allowing another to listen to it, are you violating copyright?
When you broadcast a tune on the radio, and someone tapes it, are you violating copyright by broadcasting it? Are you violating copyright by taping it?
With that answer, then consider that if someone wears a Jerry Garcia tie, and then you take their picture, are you violating copyright? What is the difference between recording a broadcast and photographing your buddy with their tie?
If you are listening to a cd and someone calls you on the phone, overhearing it, are you violating copyright, since you are engaging in a digital transfer of information that is copyrighted? Note that phone conversations are digitally encoded and transferred.
All these sorts of things involve "fair use", which the RIAA is trying to totally eliminate, such as their attempts at making it impossible to do some fair use activities, by intentionally making damaged cds that won't play on certain equipment (violating their implicit contract with Phillips, the CD patent holder, IIRC).
The scale by which this "fair use" can be done has grown immensely, however, through the digital sharing possible on the internet, so this has to be worked out. The RIAA wants as much money as it can get (notice that this doesn't mean that the artists get any money from the material, it is the recording industry that receives the money, sometimes sharing some of it with the artist).
Studies were also done which showed that the file sharing of music actually increased music sales, rather than depressed them. Studies have also been done that showed the reverse. So what is the "truth?"
And then think about the money that you contribute to the RIAA everytime you buy a cd or tape (I imagine minidiscs are included in this boondoggle as well) that goes to their "royalty" income because they assume you are violating copyrights with that media. So that sounds like I have permission to record copyrighted material, since I am paying for the privilege to do so, when I buy the blank media.
Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of musicians making money off their music. But this current setup is amiss.
I suspect, that in the long run, all music will be digitally transferred and the RIAA will go away. People will store the information as they wish, and the artists will benefit, because the huge "middleman" is gone. But also, the chance for a great lessening in quality is there.
Also note that if individual songs were purchasable, then the sales of "filler" music (the 11 other songs that suck on the album) go away, and the result is that they make about 10% of what they did. Maybe that would mean be
I put them in an metal army surplus military case, airtight, about $10 each or so.
I use the 840 Catridges, 5.56 MM, 10 Rd. Clips Bandoleers.
It will store jewel cases and anything smaller.
This situation is a microscopic vs macroscopic problem.
Microscopically, my heart goes out to your friend who must deal with hemophilia. I would feel similarly for anyone I know or learn of with a similar medical problem.
But macroscopically, the issues confronting our species are quite severe and largely being ignored. The primary issue confronting the survival of our species is overpopulation.
So now our efforts are to save the life of every human (in the US, at least those who can afford to pay it or on Government assistance), seemingly regardless of the expense. (I do not have an alternative solution for this, so I am not suggesting anything different, but it is interesting that microscopically, we put hundreds of thousands of dollars into saving one life of a baby with bad bone marrow, but on the other "macroscopic" hand, the US has bombed the life out of many thousands of Iraqis, and similarly, has neglected to pay a fraction of that to save the life of a decrepit homeless individual or a child forced to grow up in a terribly violent situation forcing them to join a gang).
In the long run, circumventing the natural actions of genetic disease allows for the gene pool to expand with defective genes that can be ameliorated sufficiently to allow the human carrying it to breed, but not enough to eradicate it.
Unchecked, the path we are treading as a species is downhill and into oblivion--how many generations will it take for a majority of humans to have the gene for diabetes? Nearsightedness? Hemophilia? Will we even have enough generations, considering the environmental and liebesraum pressures that will must continue to increase?
For those who have the ability to make money (that is, those who can afford to pay or have their health costs paid), we are largely circumventing survival of the fittest. They are encouraged to survive and thrive.
So we are now undertaking NATURAL genetic engineering, breeding certain weeknesses and perhaps some strengths (that are associated with the mating rituals) into our gene pool.
So what is the difference between doing genetic engineering on a subtle level or on an abrupt level?
But one thing is for certain. If GM individuals are created and their characteristics allow them to rise above the problems that overpopulation create, then they will become dominant. Note that I am not saying that their characteristics might be positive, they could indeed be negative, from the non-GM human viewpoint.
Slashdot Mirror
Much of the carbon was sourced from other countries, so they profited and thereby enabled the production of greenhouse gases as well. The USA has assuredly done both, but if the carbon producers, such as the Mideast, quit selling oil and coal, they could also control the amount of greenhouse gases emitted through supply reduction.
Much of the planet has benefitted from the industry and agriculture that the US and other industrial nations have provided through the use of carbon.
If the USA was located in a more temperate climate and had less area to travel over, then transportation and heating/cooling carbon emissions would be vastly reduced. Comparing other countries, that are smaller and featuring less demanding climates, to the US is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
But we are too far down this path, without incredible efforts on our part, which I do not see happening in today's political climate, Mother Earth's natural temperature regulatory processes will dominate, but will they be enough that we will survive?
It used to be that Apple did things well, and did the UI with a consistency, but that is a thing of the past. For example, Steve Jobs would not have allowed the myriad of touch keyboards I find on my ipad, iphone, ipod—the whole point of the ToolBox was to keep a uniform user interface. Its operating systems have become a mess, ease of use and organization have been slowly diminishing for a long while now, but thank heaven that unix is still there, sort of.
This is probably because people with bad hearts, etc., do not drink coffee, hence only people who are healthier drink coffee when they are old. Isn't it amazing that they would have a reduced death rate. Imagine what the relative death rate would be for old people who skydive, compared to those who don't?
Timmy keep using my lunch to feed the computer! Not fair!
Or he'd REALLY get nailed, not the slap on the wrist he's getting1
Isn't it hard to find restaurant conversions? You'd be more successful at a revival meeting, perhaps?
Considering the declining IQ of the USA, all that history stuff is superfluous anyway...
1. He wasn't writing this, he was describing it on Donahue, during an interview. It is too long ago for me to recall if he was hawking a book, but I don't believe that he was. 2. There are a gazillion items surrounding us today that would have elicited a similar "fecal" remark 100 years ago, let alone 100,000 years ago. Just as a "for instance", contemplate strands of nanotubes, metallically sealed, perhaps in a honeycomb structure, perhaps bonded through a metallic core. Even if the strength of each strand was slight, imagine 10^15 strands. Might be quite strong, lightweight, and thin? But I suppose a bigger issue is that we cannot fly about as UFOs are described. But what about in 500 years? 10,000? 100,000?
As for reliability, the missile silo guys are vetted more than just about anyone in the country. Too many reliable individuals have seen UFOs for there not to be something going on. Donahue had a retired Major on the program in about 1979-1980 who described picking up dead bodies of small, alien looking individuals at Rosswell. He also described picking up a piece of metal, thin as aluminum foil, but he couldn't dent it with a sledgehammer.
Firefox on an Abacus!?
Ahh, but then you have the submarine attack by terrorists! One throws a molotov cocktail at it (slingshoted) and watch it burn up. The longest fire ever made!
For me (dedicated Mac user since 3/1985) I have scads of software that I have purchased. To re-purchase this stuff that will be available will be expensive, adding onto the rather high price that I am expecting apple to charge for the intel macs, compared to the pc selling price at that moment. And after I've upgraded to the Intel system box, then the ability to access files will undoubtedly go away on some of my legacy items. I've already dealt with some of these issues, having software that quit working when os 7 came out. This consideration is a real issue for me, because until there is the intel setup available, G5s are the only route to upgrade. I daresay that I'll be buying a G5 soon, and then using my G5, G4 and G3 until the cows come home, or until I can no longer justify having such a "slow" processor as my G5. I think if I avoid gaming, that point will never come. It is a trade off of cost for a new machine AND new software, which typically costs more than the machine, if you do anything useful. And then there is the consideration of cutting edge or not--I remember working on designing a PCI 2.0 circuit card in 1996, a standard that Apple is YET to support (unless they've slipped it into a G5 lately without my knowledge). Apple's PCI bus has been 33 Mhz, although my g3 had one 66 Mhz bus for the video card. And the other issue is that I've had issues with the design of each mac I've owned (original Mac, IIsi, B&W G3, and G4) with faulty design or bad hardware. So this changeover is NOT gonna be an "I'll follow old Stevey Jobs down whatever road he goes" decision. If someone comes out with something better, I'll go for it. But, on the other hand, I sure do like the BSD Unix underpinnings.
Look at it this way: If Apple was mad at IBM because they weren't getting enough sales because their processor speed wasn't fast enough, it doesn't make any sense to announce that they are going Intel, which seems to be a much better method of kaboshing their sales.
Perhaps in the long term they will do well with increased sales, but this article rings true, it's all about money.
And as far as this dedicated Apple user, the reason I've been dedicated is because I was using a bunch of legacy software, but Apple has solved that problem!
Picture Mel Brooks on a wooden table, yelling, "FREEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!"
I might stay with the Mac, it's os is good, but it will be because I choose to. And I think the best option for me is to buy a new G5 is six months or so, then use it for 10 years and blow off the future improvements.
http://www.ngale.com
There is a free version of it, nearly full up in capability, called Nightlight.
Not yet for OS X, but works under OS X Classic and straight Mac OS's.
Good typesetting capability, compatible with the NoteScan application, which can scan sheet music into a file which can be imported by the full up version of Nightingale. (I have notescan, it works pretty well).
The free version, Nightlight is quite good, by the way, with only a few limitations: the size of a score, and won't import the NoteScan files, perhaps some other items.
This is not a black and white issue. Shades of grey run rampant.
It is a real problem, since there is the precedent of libraries
having made copyrighted material available to anyone who wanted to read, listen, view, copy, etc, for scores and scores of years.
Is it illegal to lend a cd to someone? And if not, in what manner can something be lent to someone? Can you read a book, then discuss and provide the detailed information in that book. As a fiddler, I often learn tunes from books, then I share that tune with another? Using the RIAA's
viewpoint, you would be in violation of copyright, since it is transmission of musical information outside of their money earning.
If a law makes *everyone* a criminal, that law is bogus.
If one were to take the RIAA's stance on everything, I would be in violation of the copyright, merely PLAYING a fiddle tune I learned from a copyrighted book, unless royalties were paid.
So you cannot say that you can only provide that information to another if you provide the original form (CD, tape, record, DVD, photograph), since we have, for decades, circumvented that procedure in our schools, living rooms, political discussions, etc. Once you have information in your head, does it cease to become copyrighted?
Likewise, when you put a melody on a network, allowing another to listen to it, are you violating copyright?
When you broadcast a tune on the radio, and someone tapes it, are you violating copyright by broadcasting it? Are you violating copyright by taping it?
With that answer, then consider that if someone wears a Jerry Garcia tie, and then you take their picture, are you violating copyright? What is the difference between recording a broadcast and photographing your buddy with their tie?
If you are listening to a cd and someone calls you on the phone, overhearing it, are you violating copyright, since you are engaging in a digital transfer of information that is copyrighted? Note that phone conversations are digitally encoded and transferred.
All these sorts of things involve "fair use", which the RIAA is trying to totally eliminate, such as their attempts at making it impossible to do some fair use activities, by intentionally making damaged cds that won't play on certain equipment (violating their implicit contract with Phillips, the CD patent holder, IIRC).
The scale by which this "fair use" can be done has grown immensely, however, through the digital sharing possible on the internet, so this has to be worked out. The RIAA wants as much money as it can get (notice that this doesn't mean that the artists get any money from the material, it is the recording industry that receives the money, sometimes sharing some of it with the artist).
Studies were also done which showed that the file sharing of music actually increased music sales, rather than depressed them. Studies have also been done that showed the reverse. So what is the "truth?"
And then think about the money that you contribute to the RIAA everytime you buy a cd or tape (I imagine minidiscs are included in this boondoggle as well) that goes to their "royalty" income because they assume you are violating copyrights with that media. So that sounds like I have permission to record copyrighted material, since I am paying for the privilege to do so, when I buy the blank media.
Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of musicians making money off their music. But this current setup is amiss.
I suspect, that in the long run, all music will be digitally
transferred and the RIAA will go away. People will store the
information as they wish, and the artists will benefit, because the huge "middleman" is gone. But also, the chance for a great lessening in quality is there.
Also note that if individual songs were purchasable, then the sales of "filler" music (the 11 other songs that suck on the album) go away, and the result is that they make about 10% of what they did. Maybe that would mean be
I have a G4 Dual 1 GHz, introduced in September 2002. FYI
I put them in an metal army surplus military case, airtight, about $10 each or so. I use the 840 Catridges, 5.56 MM, 10 Rd. Clips Bandoleers. It will store jewel cases and anything smaller.
This situation is a microscopic vs macroscopic problem. Microscopically, my heart goes out to your friend who must deal with hemophilia. I would feel similarly for anyone I know or learn of with a similar medical problem. But macroscopically, the issues confronting our species are quite severe and largely being ignored. The primary issue confronting the survival of our species is overpopulation. So now our efforts are to save the life of every human (in the US, at least those who can afford to pay it or on Government assistance), seemingly regardless of the expense. (I do not have an alternative solution for this, so I am not suggesting anything different, but it is interesting that microscopically, we put hundreds of thousands of dollars into saving one life of a baby with bad bone marrow, but on the other "macroscopic" hand, the US has bombed the life out of many thousands of Iraqis, and similarly, has neglected to pay a fraction of that to save the life of a decrepit homeless individual or a child forced to grow up in a terribly violent situation forcing them to join a gang). In the long run, circumventing the natural actions of genetic disease allows for the gene pool to expand with defective genes that can be ameliorated sufficiently to allow the human carrying it to breed, but not enough to eradicate it. Unchecked, the path we are treading as a species is downhill and into oblivion--how many generations will it take for a majority of humans to have the gene for diabetes? Nearsightedness? Hemophilia? Will we even have enough generations, considering the environmental and liebesraum pressures that will must continue to increase? For those who have the ability to make money (that is, those who can afford to pay or have their health costs paid), we are largely circumventing survival of the fittest. They are encouraged to survive and thrive. So we are now undertaking NATURAL genetic engineering, breeding certain weeknesses and perhaps some strengths (that are associated with the mating rituals) into our gene pool. So what is the difference between doing genetic engineering on a subtle level or on an abrupt level? But one thing is for certain. If GM individuals are created and their characteristics allow them to rise above the problems that overpopulation create, then they will become dominant. Note that I am not saying that their characteristics might be positive, they could indeed be negative, from the non-GM human viewpoint.
Nuf said.
The Two Towers in the book are Orthanc and Cirith Ungol, not Orthanc and Barad dur.