And leave him there, so he understands the impact of aridity on sustaining existing populations that he also depends on. It will be a thirsty if brief revelation, but I think he'll finally understand how powerful it can be.
I have been camping most of my life. Tell you what buckwheat I'll be glad to take on your desert you can try and survive in the everglades we'll see which one manages better.
It will also be fun to see how you feel about insect populations after a day or two there.
There is nobody on the right side of this. You have manufacturers that are willing to take advantage of consumer's greedy nature. Then you have consumers that think they can get something for nothing.
The only solution is if you don't like it don't buy crappy printers. I know I got good value out of my LaserJet II that finally died last year. It was so nice I was more than willing to do my own repair work on it.
Re the prior comment. Man I do need my coffee but the gist is correct. People in tech have allowed themselves to become whipped dogs, to just get by. They allow themselves to be easily manipulated by pardon the term fairy stories, while they are being robbed.
A bit of misplaced blame there. Everyone wants to get by, but we have ~30% taxes on income, ~35% taxes on corporate profits, ~5% taxes (average) on sales, 2.5% average inflation compounded annually since the 1980's, etc - all in all getting your money to the maker of a product you're looking at paying out about 80% of that just in taxes before it reaches the poor bastard assembling the thing (and that's a best case scenario when you're buying direct from a manufacturer, it only gets worse from there.) Historically societies have collapsed right around the 50% taxation mark, we're long overdue for that and everyone (very likely every software developer, engineer, and other nerd on this site included) is in the exact same boat of thinking about how to get the most out of their clients without alienating them in the process.
TL;DR: The issue is taxes, not people being greedy on the civilian side.
You're right taxes end of things. But think about how the people who actually benefit from them have turned the electorate against itself. Taxing people to build a 100 billion dollar high speed rail line that is nothing but graft ? Distract the electorate with a satellite to police other states (U.S. and foreign) carbon emissions ?? Or start up another war promoting really strange people over those that are qualified and force everyone to address them by whatever they feel like ?
If anyone goes against it, sick the mob on them. Heck if they start to forget their place, destroy someone for making a joke or wearing the wrong shirt, to remind them.
Gee if only people hadn't of built in places that always got hit by hurricanes. Here's a prediction for you, in the future they will do still more damage. Because there will be even more people living in their paths and the property will be even more valuable.
They have pretty scenery. And a neat government insurance plan that means the taxpayers buy the people brand new houses every time theirs is wrecked.
Take away that insurance and they'll soon move out.
This is very true. I just wouldn't hold my breath, seeing as beachfront property and a property on the water in general is something that only the wealthier parts of the population can afford, and they are more politically connected than ever.
Ah the lsat cry of the desparate "I was only joking".
Ahh the last cry of the desperate ??
You actually wrote that ?
It's the original IPCC report. If you don't know what's in it by now then this it's wilful ignorance on your part. You are clearly desparate t believe it's not happening and no amount of evidence will sway you.
Am I on the wrong website? Since when is this news for people who exchanged all their humanity for money?
Oh come on man. Look at the tech industry these days, not only has just about everyone given up on their humanity, they have also sold out their intellectual integrity and any morals they may have had for money, and the chance at a reasonably priced rental.
But for me, the constant question is what is the cost and who's going to bear that
Wrong question. The correct question is how much will it cost if you don't do anything. These violent storms that cost you hundreds of millions of pounds every time they hit are just the beginning.
Gee if only people hadn't of built in places that always got hit by hurricanes. Here's a prediction for you, in the future they will do still more damage. Because there will be even more people living in their paths and the property will be even more valuable.
So just to be clear, are you saying that whoever came up with or promoted steady state cosmology knew it was bullshit and was trolling the scientific community? Maybe they were shilling for Big Astrophysics, or something like that?
The key word here, which you may have missed, is "deliberate". Like the Piltdown Man, which is the only significant example that I can think of.
Just to be clear, how do you think you would have been treated if five years ago you told a geologist you thought there was an 8th continent and he was missing a couple of tectonic plates ?
You keep using the word deliberate like it means something. Which just goes to show how little you know about what you are trying to talk about.
No, I said that it's rare for deliberate falsehoods to take over a scientific field.
Just how evident do you want to make it that you know nothing about what you are talking about, and never interacted with anyone that worked in those fields when those paradigms held sway.
Like I said, it takes special kind of desparate stipidity to take a sci-fi film as a serious scientific prediction.
It takes a true moron to read a title that was written as humor literally. Or do you think people are looking to buy wafers made out of their neighbors at the supermarket ?
Really not certain with the kind of crap you regularly post.
None of the IPCC reports that have been around long have made correct predictions.
That's just you making shit up because you're desparate
Well gee you should be able to school me real good then.
Or are you too afraid and awestruck to read and actually fact check ? Like I keep saying at least fundamentalists and the orthodox, know what their faith is.
I don't like liars either. Lies can capture the public's imagination, but it's rare for deliberate falsehoods (genuine mistakes are another matter) to take over expert consensus, especially in a scientific field.
Well one you don't constitute a consensus on anything. But if you are saying it's rare for the consensus for scientific fields to be wrong, or geophysics and climate science to be radically wrong than you are stupid and a liar.
Lets see rejected consensuses in cosmology Steady State Continuous Creation (wouldn't surprise if that comes back) Big Crunch Heat Death Oscilating universe
In Geophysics Catastrophism # of continents = 7 (oops there was an 8th we missed) Rejection of plate tectonics
In climate Well just about every prediction of the earth's temperature at ground level with a more than 10 year time horizon.
Just off the top of my head.
Thank you for providing evidence of my premise, that the difference between religious people and climate people, is that religious people know they are religious.
It's 2018 and I still can't buy Soylent Green You might recall back in the 60 that by the year 2000 the U.S. would have over 300 million people and we would be starving and eating each other ?
It takes a truly desperate kind of stupidity to quote the failed "predictions" of a sci-fi film as some sort of point against climate science.
Meanwhile the actual hard predictions of global temperatures in that IPCC report have indeed come to pass. Measurements remain well within the predicted error bars.
Desperate stupidity ? I know orthodox and fundamentalist adherents of religions that have a better idea of where faith ends and science begins than climate cultists.
Look if it makes wrong predictions and you believe in it any way it's not science. None of the IPCC reports that have been around long have made correct predictions. Whats more none of the models make correct predictions if you run them backwards.
In 1968, Erich von Daniken published "Chariots of the Gods" and a lot of people read that too.
The interesting question is what experts think in total, the consensus as well.as the spread. You don't just get to pick the sensationalist outliers at either end.
I don't like liars, I especially don't like stupid, unentertaining and transparent liars.
Fears of a "population explosion" were widespread in the 1950s and 1960s, but the book and its author brought the idea to an even wider audience
In 1948, two widely read books were published that would inspire a "neo-Malthusian" debate on population and the environment: Fairfield Osborn’s Our Plundered Planet and William Vogt’s Road to Survival. Although, they are now much less well known than Population Bomb, they inspired many works such as the original Population Bomb pamphlet by Hugh Everett Moore in 1954 that inspired the name of Ehrlich's book, as well as some of the original societies concerned with population and environmental matters.[3] D.B. Luten has said that although the book is often seen as a seminal work in the field, the Population Bomb is actually best understood as "climaxing and in a sense terminating the debate of the 1950s and 1960s.”[14] Ehrlich has said that he traced his own Malthusian beliefs to a lecture he heard Vogt give when he was attending university in the early 1950s. For Ehrlich, these writers provided “a global framework for things he had observed as a young naturalist."[3]
Pierre Desrochers; Christine Hoffbauer (2009). "The Post War Intellectual Roots of the Population Bomb" (PDF). The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development. 1 (3): 73–97. Retrieved 2010-02-01. The phrase "population bomb", was already in use. For example, see this article. Quality Analysis and Quality Control, Canadian Medical Association Journal, June 9, 1962, vol. 86, p. 1074
Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones.
It was a dramatic prediction that was widely picked up by the world’s media. In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations University declared that 50 million people could become environmental refugees by 2010, fleeing the effects of climate change.
But now the UN is distancing itself from the forecast: “It is not a UNEP prediction,” a UNEP spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE. The forecast has since been removed from UNEP’s website. —Spiegel Online
2000 no more snow in the UK
In March 2000, , “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
1864 Father of American Environmentalism predicts imminent destruction of environment
As early as 1864 George Perkins Marsh, sometimes said to be the father of American ecology, warned that the earth was ‘fast becoming an unfit home for its “noblest inhabitant,”’ and that unless men changed their ways it would be reduced ‘to such a condition of impoverished productiveness, of shattered surface, of climatic excess, as to threaten the deprivation, barbarism, and perhaps even extinction of the species.’
–Google Books Readings In Environmental Impact page 111
Problem with your storyline: I trash SJW's all the time. If only you could take your self and all your bigoted dumbfuck friends and move out to an island with SJW's, so you can righteously throw your own excrement at each other while engaging in delusions of moral superiority.
Unh hunh. You're pretty big on projection aren't you ?
Slashdot Mirror
If (Character.Status = "Knows_About_NPC")
{
Deny();
Deflect();
Accuse();
}
And leave him there, so he understands the impact of aridity on sustaining existing populations that he also depends on. It will be a thirsty if brief revelation, but I think he'll finally understand how powerful it can be.
I have been camping most of my life. Tell you what buckwheat I'll be glad to take on your desert you can try and survive in the everglades we'll see which one manages better.
It will also be fun to see how you feel about insect populations after a day or two there.
It's 2018 I still can't buy that stuff.
I am going to have to satisfy myself with rotisserie child.
A directed attack that was claimed would actually destroy the ecosystem up through birds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Which just wound up seeing to it poor people got malaria
Now global warming has killed off insects by making conditions more favorable to them ? Is there no limit to its power.
Hmm I have a windows vms going back to 3.1 Be interesting to see what the determining factor is. Likely when they got frozen
I am still using office 2003 and have a windows XP VM I use as a bridge for old software and hardware.
There is nobody on the right side of this.
You have manufacturers that are willing to take advantage of consumer's greedy nature. Then you have consumers that think they can get something for nothing.
The only solution is if you don't like it don't buy crappy printers. I know I got good value out of my LaserJet II that finally died last year. It was so nice I was more than willing to do my own repair work on it.
Re the prior comment. Man I do need my coffee but the gist is correct. People in tech have allowed themselves to become whipped dogs, to just get by. They allow themselves to be easily manipulated by pardon the term fairy stories, while they are being robbed.
A bit of misplaced blame there. Everyone wants to get by, but we have ~30% taxes on income, ~35% taxes on corporate profits, ~5% taxes (average) on sales, 2.5% average inflation compounded annually since the 1980's, etc - all in all getting your money to the maker of a product you're looking at paying out about 80% of that just in taxes before it reaches the poor bastard assembling the thing (and that's a best case scenario when you're buying direct from a manufacturer, it only gets worse from there.) Historically societies have collapsed right around the 50% taxation mark, we're long overdue for that and everyone (very likely every software developer, engineer, and other nerd on this site included) is in the exact same boat of thinking about how to get the most out of their clients without alienating them in the process.
TL;DR: The issue is taxes, not people being greedy on the civilian side.
You're right taxes end of things. But think about how the people who actually benefit from them have turned the electorate against itself. Taxing people to build a 100 billion dollar high speed rail line that is nothing but graft ? Distract the electorate with a satellite to police other states (U.S. and foreign) carbon emissions ?? Or start up another war promoting really strange people over those that are qualified and force everyone to address them by whatever they feel like ?
If anyone goes against it, sick the mob on them. Heck if they start to forget their place, destroy someone for making a joke or wearing the wrong shirt, to remind them.
Gee if only people hadn't of built in places that always got hit by hurricanes. Here's a prediction for you, in the future they will do still more damage. Because there will be even more people living in their paths and the property will be even more valuable.
They have pretty scenery. And a neat government insurance plan that means the taxpayers buy the people brand new houses every time theirs is wrecked.
Take away that insurance and they'll soon move out.
This is very true. I just wouldn't hold my breath, seeing as beachfront property and a property on the water in general is something that only the wealthier parts of the population can afford, and they are more politically connected than ever.
Ah the lsat cry of the desparate "I was only joking".
Ahh the last cry of the desperate ??
You actually wrote that ?
It's the original IPCC report. If you don't know what's in it by now then this it's wilful ignorance on your part. You are clearly desparate t believe it's not happening and no amount of evidence will sway you.
You don't know what it says do you ?
Am I on the wrong website? Since when is this news for people who exchanged all their humanity for money?
Oh come on man. Look at the tech industry these days, not only has just about everyone given up on their humanity, they have also sold out their intellectual integrity and any morals they may have had for money, and the chance at a reasonably priced rental.
I see, you're stupid.
Neat trick. Do you do animal impressions as well ?
But for me, the constant question is what is the cost and who's going to bear that
Wrong question. The correct question is how much will it cost if you don't do anything. These violent storms that cost you hundreds of millions of pounds every time they hit are just the beginning.
Gee if only people hadn't of built in places that always got hit by hurricanes. Here's a prediction for you, in the future they will do still more damage. Because there will be even more people living in their paths and the property will be even more valuable.
So just to be clear, are you saying that whoever came up with or promoted steady state cosmology knew it was bullshit and was trolling the scientific community? Maybe they were shilling for Big Astrophysics, or something like that?
The key word here, which you may have missed, is "deliberate". Like the Piltdown Man, which is the only significant example that I can think of.
Just to be clear, how do you think you would have been treated if five years ago you told a geologist you thought there was an 8th continent and he was missing a couple of tectonic plates ?
You keep using the word deliberate like it means something. Which just goes to show how little you know about what you are trying to talk about.
No, I said that it's rare for deliberate falsehoods to take over a scientific field.
Just how evident do you want to make it that you know nothing about what you are talking about, and never interacted with anyone that worked in those fields when those paradigms held sway.
You are literally talking out of your ass.
Like I said, it takes special kind of desparate stipidity to take a sci-fi film as a serious scientific prediction.
It takes a true moron to read a title that was written as humor literally. Or do you think people are looking to buy wafers made out of their neighbors at the supermarket ?
Really not certain with the kind of crap you regularly post.
None of the IPCC reports that have been around long have made correct predictions.
That's just you making shit up because you're desparate
Well gee you should be able to school me real good then.
Or are you too afraid and awestruck to read and actually fact check ? Like I keep saying at least fundamentalists and the orthodox, know what their faith is.
I don't like liars either. Lies can capture the public's imagination, but it's rare for deliberate falsehoods (genuine mistakes are another matter) to take over expert consensus, especially in a scientific field.
Well one you don't constitute a consensus on anything. But if you are saying it's rare for the consensus for scientific fields to be wrong, or geophysics and climate science to be radically wrong than you are stupid and a liar.
Lets see rejected consensuses in cosmology
Steady State
Continuous Creation (wouldn't surprise if that comes back)
Big Crunch
Heat Death
Oscilating universe
In Geophysics
Catastrophism
# of continents = 7 (oops there was an 8th we missed)
Rejection of plate tectonics
In climate
Well just about every prediction of the earth's temperature at ground level with a more than 10 year time horizon.
Just off the top of my head.
Thank you for providing evidence of my premise, that the difference between religious people and climate people, is that religious people know they are religious.
It's 2018 and I still can't buy Soylent Green You might recall back in the 60 that by the year 2000 the U.S. would have over 300 million people and we would be starving and eating each other ?
It takes a truly desperate kind of stupidity to quote the failed "predictions" of a sci-fi film as some sort of point against climate science.
Meanwhile the actual hard predictions of global temperatures in that IPCC report have indeed come to pass. Measurements remain well within the predicted error bars.
Desperate stupidity ? I know orthodox and fundamentalist adherents of religions that have a better idea of where faith ends and science begins than climate cultists.
Look if it makes wrong predictions and you believe in it any way it's not science. None of the IPCC reports that have been around long have made correct predictions. Whats more none of the models make correct predictions if you run them backwards.
In 1968, Erich von Daniken published "Chariots of the Gods" and a lot of people read that too.
The interesting question is what experts think in total, the consensus as well.as the spread. You don't just get to pick the sensationalist outliers at either end.
I don't like liars, I especially don't like stupid, unentertaining and transparent liars.
Fears of a "population explosion" were widespread in the 1950s and 1960s, but the book and its author brought the idea to an even wider audience
In 1948, two widely read books were published that would inspire a "neo-Malthusian" debate on population and the environment: Fairfield Osborn’s Our Plundered Planet and William Vogt’s Road to Survival. Although, they are now much less well known than Population Bomb, they inspired many works such as the original Population Bomb pamphlet by Hugh Everett Moore in 1954 that inspired the name of Ehrlich's book, as well as some of the original societies concerned with population and environmental matters.[3] D.B. Luten has said that although the book is often seen as a seminal work in the field, the Population Bomb is actually best understood as "climaxing and in a sense terminating the debate of the 1950s and 1960s.”[14] Ehrlich has said that he traced his own Malthusian beliefs to a lecture he heard Vogt give when he was attending university in the early 1950s. For Ehrlich, these writers provided “a global framework for things he had observed as a young naturalist."[3]
Pierre Desrochers; Christine Hoffbauer (2009). "The Post War Intellectual Roots of the Population Bomb" (PDF). The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development. 1 (3): 73–97. Retrieved 2010-02-01.
The phrase "population bomb", was already in use. For example, see this article. Quality Analysis and Quality Control, Canadian Medical Association Journal, June 9, 1962, vol. 86, p. 1074
You might recall back in the 60 that by the year 2000 the U.S. would have over 300 million people and we would be starving and eating each other ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well it's 2018 and a 1/3rd of the world is now Obese ( http://www.healthdata.org/news... ) Small child must be very filling.
UN Predicts 50 Million Climate Refugees by 2010
Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones.
It was a dramatic prediction that was widely picked up by the world’s media. In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations University declared that 50 million people could become environmental refugees by 2010, fleeing the effects of climate change.
But now the UN is distancing itself from the forecast: “It is not a UNEP prediction,” a UNEP spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE. The forecast has since been removed from UNEP’s website. —Spiegel Online
2000 no more snow in the UK
In March 2000, , “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
1864 Father of American Environmentalism predicts imminent destruction of environment
As early as 1864 George Perkins Marsh, sometimes said to be the father of American ecology, warned that the earth was ‘fast becoming an unfit home for its “noblest inhabitant,”’ and that unless men changed their ways it would be reduced ‘to such a condition of impoverished productiveness, of shattered surface, of climatic excess, as to threaten the deprivation, barbarism, and perhaps even extinction of the species.’
–Google Books Readings In Environmental Impact page 111
Really ?? Describing goo as a material that heals itself ?
Google just about anything and the first result and the sidebar will have links to Wikipedia.
Problem with your storyline: I trash SJW's all the time. If only you could take your self and all your bigoted dumbfuck friends and move out to an island with SJW's, so you can righteously throw your own excrement at each other while engaging in delusions of moral superiority.
Unh hunh. You're pretty big on projection aren't you ?
https://www.bing.com/search?q=...
Bing Search for Jews. Not horrifying at all.