I would give you the obvious answer (if I could decide wether you were making a joke), but you simply said it yourself... Why didn't you accept the obvious answer as such, and asked for another one?
We can make it better, of course. Trees are extremely inefficient. But then, we'd better using any power source created for that task to reduce our emissions, instead of taking the carbon already on the athmosphere. So, the only answer are trees. That, or if we want to get all hight tech, grass, stored as some purified product (some people say one can put letters on that purified stuff and tell histories).
Eh, no. The original Kyoto meeting showed us about the US, again. That's correct. But then, the second meeting showed that after that first experience nobody wanted to play the game anymore.
Do those estimatives deal with peak gas, oil and coal? Because we simply can't assume business as usual for another couple of centuries. If they don't, I present you the answer you are searching for. Taking them into acount, we have two alternatives:
A) Nature will do something as evil as you proposed at your alternative A. Except that nobody can call Nature "evil", so that's fine.
B) We fix it now, and as a side effect, our emissions won't be all that relevant to our wealth anymore, and we can simply stop them.
Anyway, I think you are partialy right, and we can expect the ocean level to rise, several species to go extinct, crop land to become useles (and some crop land to appear, but "unexpectedly" it won't be as productive as the lost ones), some places to no be inhabitable anymore. What I don't expect is a complete change on the oceans chemistry.
Reading the MSM I got the impression I'm was the only person in the world expecting the conference to fail. I always assumed that was because MSM is stupid, but came-on, here too?
Why would anybody expect any agreement? Wasn't Kyoto enough to show that nobody wants to commit, and everybody wants everybody else to? There is no more easy stuff to do for the environment (like banning CFCs), nobody will reach an agreement on anything hard. Claiming the failure is due to any cause, but lack of commitment is a lie.
You are the secon one I see here claimming that we can't dump salt on the ocean. WTF? Of course we can dump salt on the ocean. What do you think we'll do with the fresh water after we use it? Those things cancel each other.
The only thing missing is that the article implies that nobody have actualy created it. But there aren't enough details to be certain of that. I'd say, "they found, or somebody found, or there are people looking for it, or they think people could look for it".
Disposing of what exactly? Brine? We already to that, with very light effects on the environment. The graphene? It's not toxic, it can be safely handled and stored; burning it will release only CO2 and (a very small amount of) water.
Well, TFA brings absolutely no detail. It won't even let you know it it is about something produced in a lab, some theoretical contruction, or even if nobody has no idea how to create such a filter.
Now, graphene is pretty stable. It probably cloges with time, as other athoms get in the place of carbon, but that is an incredibly slow process. A membrane composed of a single graphene sheet should last more than any other component of your plant.
Ok, all the above is great, and etc. But when you get in the real world, membranes get old because of impurities that accumulate on its porous. A single graphene sheet has nowhere for those impurities to accumulate, if you reverse whash it, all impurities are gone (except for the mechanism at the above paragraph). But no practical membrane is composed of a single graphene sheet, thus, durability will be probably all over the scale depending on the quality of the actual membrane, from trash that can't be used on a lab to as good as ceramic filters.
Debian stable (sqeeze) is using 3.0, you can take it out of the list. I don't know about old-stable, but if even Debian already upgraded, there isn't probably any important distro using it anymore.
If PHP resembles ASP, it is because PHP is a plain copy of ASP. With a few small points that needed extending extended, and a few small points that needed correcting made worse.
The only problem is that it came 5 years later, when ASP wasn't really needed anymore.
No, not all or nothing. But it also doesn't give any fine control, it increases in quanta, and there are about 3 of them between "completely released" and "completely locked". I never drived a car that was different.
Does this mean that new supernova contributed 1.2% of radiation of all stars, including Sun? Does Sun contribute to Carbon 14 contents in tree rings?
Yes, that means the supernova contributed to 1.2% of the neutron radiation of the Sun, as the rest of the Universe isn't really relevant for calculations.
To be fair, the start menu isn't that usefull. It won't let you give any argument to the software, won't let you pipe, use vars or control the flux of execution when using more than one program at a time. In fact, it won't do anything besides launching a single program, with its default settings. And to ad insult to injury, it will even hide both the outputs of it.
I can see why obody likes it. It's nearly useless.
Slashdot Mirror
I would give you the obvious answer (if I could decide wether you were making a joke), but you simply said it yourself... Why didn't you accept the obvious answer as such, and asked for another one?
We can make it better, of course. Trees are extremely inefficient. But then, we'd better using any power source created for that task to reduce our emissions, instead of taking the carbon already on the athmosphere. So, the only answer are trees. That, or if we want to get all hight tech, grass, stored as some purified product (some people say one can put letters on that purified stuff and tell histories).
Eh, no. The original Kyoto meeting showed us about the US, again. That's correct. But then, the second meeting showed that after that first experience nobody wanted to play the game anymore.
Do those estimatives deal with peak gas, oil and coal? Because we simply can't assume business as usual for another couple of centuries. If they don't, I present you the answer you are searching for. Taking them into acount, we have two alternatives:
A) Nature will do something as evil as you proposed at your alternative A. Except that nobody can call Nature "evil", so that's fine.
B) We fix it now, and as a side effect, our emissions won't be all that relevant to our wealth anymore, and we can simply stop them.
Anyway, I think you are partialy right, and we can expect the ocean level to rise, several species to go extinct, crop land to become useles (and some crop land to appear, but "unexpectedly" it won't be as productive as the lost ones), some places to no be inhabitable anymore. What I don't expect is a complete change on the oceans chemistry.
If people stop buying, they'll stop selling.
Why do everybody assumes that spying is about ads? Is your atention the only valuable thing you have on your mind?
Oh, I see. You want secure things, like the CISCO models on TFA?
Reading the MSM I got the impression I'm was the only person in the world expecting the conference to fail. I always assumed that was because MSM is stupid, but came-on, here too?
Why would anybody expect any agreement? Wasn't Kyoto enough to show that nobody wants to commit, and everybody wants everybody else to? There is no more easy stuff to do for the environment (like banning CFCs), nobody will reach an agreement on anything hard. Claiming the failure is due to any cause, but lack of commitment is a lie.
If you knew the statistics around that number, you'd also doubt 99,99% certainy.
Ah, but that is only 150 and something.
Microsoft has just created 30 countries on Mars, so that you have more options with the Windows Marketplace.
Let me se:
1 - Google gives me a prompt;
2 - I type something;
3 - Google interprets and show the results;
4 - Google prompts me again.
Ok, steps 3 and 4 are somewhat merged, but all of them are present. What is the difference, really?
You didn't look at Gnome recently, did you?
You are the secon one I see here claimming that we can't dump salt on the ocean. WTF? Of course we can dump salt on the ocean. What do you think we'll do with the fresh water after we use it? Those things cancel each other.
Ok, that almost summarizes it.
The only thing missing is that the article implies that nobody have actualy created it. But there aren't enough details to be certain of that. I'd say, "they found, or somebody found, or there are people looking for it, or they think people could look for it".
Disposing of what exactly? Brine? We already to that, with very light effects on the environment. The graphene? It's not toxic, it can be safely handled and stored; burning it will release only CO2 and (a very small amount of) water.
Well, TFA brings absolutely no detail. It won't even let you know it it is about something produced in a lab, some theoretical contruction, or even if nobody has no idea how to create such a filter.
Now, graphene is pretty stable. It probably cloges with time, as other athoms get in the place of carbon, but that is an incredibly slow process. A membrane composed of a single graphene sheet should last more than any other component of your plant.
Ok, all the above is great, and etc. But when you get in the real world, membranes get old because of impurities that accumulate on its porous. A single graphene sheet has nowhere for those impurities to accumulate, if you reverse whash it, all impurities are gone (except for the mechanism at the above paragraph). But no practical membrane is composed of a single graphene sheet, thus, durability will be probably all over the scale depending on the quality of the actual membrane, from trash that can't be used on a lab to as good as ceramic filters.
Yep, you are righ. Now I'll have to dicover how the machine that I looked yesterday got the kernel 3.0.
Debian stable (sqeeze) is using 3.0, you can take it out of the list. I don't know about old-stable, but if even Debian already upgraded, there isn't probably any important distro using it anymore.
That's great, because how it looks like is the only thing you can know.
Microsoft taking huge losses on a gamble? That would be unheard of.
Now, seriously, it is obvious that they'll take huge initial losses to try to establish some foothold. The question is only if that'll be enough.
They want it back? Really?!?
If PHP resembles ASP, it is because PHP is a plain copy of ASP. With a few small points that needed extending extended, and a few small points that needed correcting made worse.
The only problem is that it came 5 years later, when ASP wasn't really needed anymore.
And then, there is PHP, that nobody even care to bitch about anymore, since it's so bad everybody agrees on how bad it is... But everybody still uses.
It is not completely new, it is just one entire new level on the game.
No, not all or nothing. But it also doesn't give any fine control, it increases in quanta, and there are about 3 of them between "completely released" and "completely locked". I never drived a car that was different.
Yes, that means the supernova contributed to 1.2% of the neutron radiation of the Sun, as the rest of the Universe isn't really relevant for calculations.
To be fair, the start menu isn't that usefull. It won't let you give any argument to the software, won't let you pipe, use vars or control the flux of execution when using more than one program at a time. In fact, it won't do anything besides launching a single program, with its default settings. And to ad insult to injury, it will even hide both the outputs of it.
I can see why obody likes it. It's nearly useless.
Really?!? On what kind of emergency it would be usefull to lose entire control of the car, but make sure it'll stop in a few seconds?