So the real answer to smart phone use is bluetooth enabled adaptive cruise control, that when the proximity alarms go off sends a message to the cell phone "ALERT!!! YOU ARE ABOUT TO CRASH AND BURN YOU SHITHEAD!"
I always wanted to know why the Once-ler didn't *shave* the trees for thneeds, instead of cutting them down. But then again, as a child at the time I was reading this book for the first time, I was also raising sheep in 4-H.
It doesn't even do that. It basically says "you're too drunk to drive, you probably shouldn't". It isn't an ignition interlock and it has no guarantee that the user is too drunk to understand the reading from the breathalyzer.
Have you forgotten about cirrhosis of the liver? Not to mention divorce, child and spousal abuse, well, I guess that goes back to harm to other people. But alcohol isn't exactly harmless either.
If CO2 is actually increasing, however, that can act like an atmosphere based fertilizer- which will also ADD food yield in other regions. Also, as Israel proved over the last 60 years, the more plants you plant, the less desert you have- because in a drought situation, plants become their own atmospheric water collectors, causing more rain.
In fact, I've long said that the obvious reaction is to plant more food. The plants suck up carbon, which becomes food for animals and humans, and since humans are at the top of the food chain, eventually becomes obese humans. When those obese humans die, thanks to modern funeral rights where the bodies aren't recycled but are locked away in concrete tombs, the carbon gets locked away in the concrete tombs.
It's almost as good as raising trees and building houses for carbon sequestration.
But of course, as long as the tabloid AWG people are still selling cap&trade and a lower standard of living as the primary method of fighting global warming, it will never happen. And it is that insane tabloid reaction to AGW that Rick Santorum is talking about. - thus bringing this whole conversation back on topic.
I'm not aware of anyone seriously presenting such a scenario - at least not for policy purposes
You didn't see "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore? That scenario is basically the basis of the Kyoto agreement!
The problem with the second scenario really isn't so much with water rising - though it's nothing to smirk at, either, as even a 1m rise is large enough to require shifting some stuff around. The problem is messed-up weather patterns screwing our agriculture, and reducing the overall yield because of increase in droughts not quite offset by newly arable lands. Western countries can manage that, by and large - we'll just move things around, we've got the infrastructure for that. But you can bet Africa will be fucked if they have persistent droughts, and probably a good chunk of Asia, too.
If they return to traditional foods- and traditional techniques- they'll be fine in the long run. It's more a matter of choosing the plants and animals that fit your environment, than attempting to raise stuff that doesn't fit just because it tastes good. It would also help if we'd stop ruining their food markets with our exports.
No, I understand the feedback loop. But I think that CO2 is much less of a greenhouse gas than CFCs or even methane- and to crank out enough CO2 for it to be the *ONLY* cause of global warming, to the point of the dire 60-foot rise in sea levels predicted, is a bit outlandish.
Yes. For the worst case- waterworld-type scenarios that have been presented politically- that is exactly the problem with them.
For something simple like "we're going to lose a few islands that had a maximum elevation of 3 feet" and "we're past the tipping point and the tundra is now producing more greenhouse gasses than all of mankind's emissions combined" however, it still makes sense.
But those two scenarios are *very* far apart. One requires panic and an instant end to all human industrial output. The other just requires that we get inventive and adapt to the new situation.
Proportion. You'd have to have a relatively small influence (mankind's greenhouse gas emissions) cause a huge out of proportion change. If we were generating that much pollution, we would all be dead, there'd be no oxygen left in the atmosphere at all. There MUST be other influences.
Science would not exist without Catholicism. It takes a certain knowledge that God won't change the rules at random to provide the philosophical basis for science; and it is on that belief that Santorum rejects global warming, which requires a change in physics to believe in.
Except, of course, Intelligent Design is officially denied by the Vatican in favor of something called "Theistic Evolution" which basically is evolution combined with the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Physics, with God as the Observer/Creator (because God's observing the universe, he's affecting the universe).
The Mennonites I grew up around in Oregon (German Apostolic Christian Branch- yes, they still held their Sunday Services in God's Holy Language of German) bought the latest farm equipment, and in boom years had the latest vans for carting their large families around in.
But they purchased them without radios, we were evil for having a TV Set, and one older gentleman kept trying to convince me that there was no future in computers and I should return to sheep herding.
Thus my shock that in Canada, some Mennonite churches are now taking online donations. My very liberal Catholic parish only started that last year, and there was an instant backlash among the faithful who viewed putting a small check (tithing in the modern Catholic Church averages 2.9% of income) in the basket as a sacramental duty.
He didn't. His age is based in the Hebrew "hands of hands" factoral 5 numbering system, and in moons rather than years, making him dead at 84 our time.
Yeah, but the donation box marked "for the poor" is still on the wall regardless.
In the Archdiocese of Portland- we just got hit up 3 ways- normal weekly church collection, Archbishop's capital campaign 2nd payment of 5, and the Archbishop's appeal, all in the same week. Needless to say, my contribution for the last went severely down this year.
It is intercourse- but it isn't sex. Not sex done properly. Not sex done STRAIGHT- without perversions such as homosexuality, oral intercourse, or anal intercourse.
Actually, it's not a sex act. Sex acts lead to pregnancy which lead to children. It's a perversion of a sex act, because it doesn't lead to pregnancy and doesn't lead to children.
Slashdot Mirror
So the real answer to smart phone use is bluetooth enabled adaptive cruise control, that when the proximity alarms go off sends a message to the cell phone "ALERT!!! YOU ARE ABOUT TO CRASH AND BURN YOU SHITHEAD!"
I always wanted to know why the Once-ler didn't *shave* the trees for thneeds, instead of cutting them down. But then again, as a child at the time I was reading this book for the first time, I was also raising sheep in 4-H.
Average quality life of a drunk is pretty damn low. That's the reason they drink to begin with.
And the heart- my grandfather died of it at 57.
It doesn't even do that. It basically says "you're too drunk to drive, you probably shouldn't". It isn't an ignition interlock and it has no guarantee that the user is too drunk to understand the reading from the breathalyzer.
Like a dime store AA battery powered fan.
Going out drinking 5-6 times a week? Dude, if the GP is doing that, then guess what- they have an alcohol problem.
Have you forgotten about cirrhosis of the liver? Not to mention divorce, child and spousal abuse, well, I guess that goes back to harm to other people. But alcohol isn't exactly harmless either.
Yet. I predict from this trend will rise cheap, bluetooth enabled medical sensors of various types.
If CO2 is actually increasing, however, that can act like an atmosphere based fertilizer- which will also ADD food yield in other regions. Also, as Israel proved over the last 60 years, the more plants you plant, the less desert you have- because in a drought situation, plants become their own atmospheric water collectors, causing more rain.
In fact, I've long said that the obvious reaction is to plant more food. The plants suck up carbon, which becomes food for animals and humans, and since humans are at the top of the food chain, eventually becomes obese humans. When those obese humans die, thanks to modern funeral rights where the bodies aren't recycled but are locked away in concrete tombs, the carbon gets locked away in the concrete tombs.
It's almost as good as raising trees and building houses for carbon sequestration.
But of course, as long as the tabloid AWG people are still selling cap&trade and a lower standard of living as the primary method of fighting global warming, it will never happen. And it is that insane tabloid reaction to AGW that Rick Santorum is talking about. - thus bringing this whole conversation back on topic.
Greek science is to modern science what Alchemy is to Chemistry.
The amount of CO2 it would take to melt off the poles permanently, for the several meter rise in sea level, as predicted by Al Gore.
I'm not aware of anyone seriously presenting such a scenario - at least not for policy purposes
You didn't see "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore? That scenario is basically the basis of the Kyoto agreement!
The problem with the second scenario really isn't so much with water rising - though it's nothing to smirk at, either, as even a 1m rise is large enough to require shifting some stuff around. The problem is messed-up weather patterns screwing our agriculture, and reducing the overall yield because of increase in droughts not quite offset by newly arable lands. Western countries can manage that, by and large - we'll just move things around, we've got the infrastructure for that. But you can bet Africa will be fucked if they have persistent droughts, and probably a good chunk of Asia, too.
If they return to traditional foods- and traditional techniques- they'll be fine in the long run. It's more a matter of choosing the plants and animals that fit your environment, than attempting to raise stuff that doesn't fit just because it tastes good. It would also help if we'd stop ruining their food markets with our exports.
No, I understand the feedback loop. But I think that CO2 is much less of a greenhouse gas than CFCs or even methane- and to crank out enough CO2 for it to be the *ONLY* cause of global warming, to the point of the dire 60-foot rise in sea levels predicted, is a bit outlandish.
Yes. For the worst case- waterworld-type scenarios that have been presented politically- that is exactly the problem with them.
For something simple like "we're going to lose a few islands that had a maximum elevation of 3 feet" and "we're past the tipping point and the tundra is now producing more greenhouse gasses than all of mankind's emissions combined" however, it still makes sense.
But those two scenarios are *very* far apart. One requires panic and an instant end to all human industrial output. The other just requires that we get inventive and adapt to the new situation.
Proportion. You'd have to have a relatively small influence (mankind's greenhouse gas emissions) cause a huge out of proportion change. If we were generating that much pollution, we would all be dead, there'd be no oxygen left in the atmosphere at all. There MUST be other influences.
Science would not exist without Catholicism. It takes a certain knowledge that God won't change the rules at random to provide the philosophical basis for science; and it is on that belief that Santorum rejects global warming, which requires a change in physics to believe in.
Except, of course, Intelligent Design is officially denied by the Vatican in favor of something called "Theistic Evolution" which basically is evolution combined with the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Physics, with God as the Observer/Creator (because God's observing the universe, he's affecting the universe).
What I want to do: Open an internet cafe.
I'm just not sure how to get there from here.
The Mennonites I grew up around in Oregon (German Apostolic Christian Branch- yes, they still held their Sunday Services in God's Holy Language of German) bought the latest farm equipment, and in boom years had the latest vans for carting their large families around in.
But they purchased them without radios, we were evil for having a TV Set, and one older gentleman kept trying to convince me that there was no future in computers and I should return to sheep herding.
Thus my shock that in Canada, some Mennonite churches are now taking online donations. My very liberal Catholic parish only started that last year, and there was an instant backlash among the faithful who viewed putting a small check (tithing in the modern Catholic Church averages 2.9% of income) in the basket as a sacramental duty.
He didn't. His age is based in the Hebrew "hands of hands" factoral 5 numbering system, and in moons rather than years, making him dead at 84 our time.
I can see the others, but MENNONITE?!?!?!?!?
Yeah, but the donation box marked "for the poor" is still on the wall regardless.
In the Archdiocese of Portland- we just got hit up 3 ways- normal weekly church collection, Archbishop's capital campaign 2nd payment of 5, and the Archbishop's appeal, all in the same week. Needless to say, my contribution for the last went severely down this year.
It is intercourse- but it isn't sex. Not sex done properly. Not sex done STRAIGHT- without perversions such as homosexuality, oral intercourse, or anal intercourse.
Actually, it's not a sex act. Sex acts lead to pregnancy which lead to children. It's a perversion of a sex act, because it doesn't lead to pregnancy and doesn't lead to children.
Get your definitions STRAIGHT- pun intended.