True enough- IF you can prove it was a murder and not an accident.
Can you prove intent with global climate change? If you ignore the utterly non-scientific process of "scientific consensus", do you even have enough data left to prove the murder weapon?
And in the long run, does it matter? We're still left with the decision to either adapt or die; we're far too late for any mitigation attempt to work. Blame the culprit is a waste of time in this case.
Species that are unable to adapt have been going extinct without mankind's help for 9/10ths of the planet's history. For the remaining 1/10th, we've been a major motivator of evolution, that's true- Dodos and wooly mammoths and the like. But we are also to the point with GMO research that we can be a major cause of increased adaptation- we can speed up evolution, and likely will, because beef is tasty (among many other species that are directly useful to us, such as bees). Speaking of that last, just saw a report on OPB about a pair of beekeepers with a unique solution to colony collapse disorder- they're breeding stronger queen bees that can live through Oregon winters.
If mankind wants to survive, food needs to be our top priority. Luckily, as I mentioned someplace above I think, food production is also an answer to excess atmospheric carbon. Especially if we keep locking our own carbon up in airtight containers buried in concrete when we die.
California has been in drought for 9000 of the last 12000 years. It's the normal state there. Switch from avacado to chia, and you'll be fine.
The Midwest is another story. We've been planting our favorite foods there so long that we've destroyed the ecology of the place. Thus the "Dust Bowl" phenomenon.
But there is one way to deal with this- bunch grass grazing. It's working well in the Eastern Oregon Desert; but it's hard to manage.
Adapt, work with the ecology, not against it, with climate change, not against it. The earth will survive, human beings are not guaranteed to; but we do have one advantage- invention.
I know of only one desert on earth that is entirely life free, and it's prevented from having rainfall by elevation (it's higher than most clouds, and in the rain shadow of the Andes which are even higher and prevent weather patterns from reaching there- hasn't had rainfall in 10,000 years).
Global climatic climate change droughts are different, they're more of the flash flood once in a blue moon variety, more like Death Valley in California- where the Native Americans have been agricultural for centuries, just on foods you won't eat.
And that is the real key. We have to get *real local* to survive this.
Cost? Responses to global climate change have nothing to do with cost.
You also misunderstand the main use of urban farming: increasing vegetable biomass is the point, not eliminating agricultural chemicals. Increase the vegetable biomass and you *will* remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and replace it with oxygen, that's how plants breathe.
Poor Japanese fishermen have been seasteading for centuries, using bamboo as their primary construction material. And yes, barnacles do get on everything, but once again, plant mass is the answer- when your mooring post grows faster than the barnacles attack.....
Not necessarily. Change what we plant and what we eat, certainly, but there are plenty of drought resistant edibles out there. Tequila even comes from one of them.
It's easy to avoid ocean acidification. Urban farming, using drought resistant food plants that can get by on little water, to use photosynthesis to suck carbon out of the atmosphere.
Sea level rise can be handled with seasteading to give poorer populations a place to live. Their waste can be used for farming salt resistant food plants, like sea beans, on the boats, sucking more carbon out of the atmosphere, as well as converting the methane to energy for propulsion.
It's a matter of reimagining what our response is- away from prevention and towards adaptation.
Doesn't need to be, but you have to stand in line behind the pedophiles, polygamists, and instinctual relationships, they were there first. Of course, now that homosexuals can marry, I suspect the redefinition will start happening quite regularly. Bestiality will get its turn.
I'd mod this up if I could. And I'd suggest it also applies in not only mental realms, but also the physical, and could well be an explanation for why NO women were able to pass the special forces exams for the military.
It only looks like satire or stupidity to the ignorant. It is, sadly, 100% correct, even if politically incorrect and decidedly chauvinist, it is what occurred in pre history when the division of labor was handed out.
I still do not know what is wrong with zone defense automated systems. Sometimes, you WANT segregation as a tactical diplomacy method, and we're to the point of "If it moves and is in the zone, kill it" technology far in excess of the low tech minefields of yesteryear.
The correct way, in classic basic, to designate type was with a suffix- such as "A$" for a string variable named a and "I%" for a loop variable of type integer. DIM was short for "dimension" and was only used for arrays.
Now get off my interpreter, you young whippersnapper.
I am informed by the people I interview with that algorithms are called patterns now, just like the Common Gateway Interface became REpresentful State Transfer. The only way to stay employed past 40 is to keep up on the jargon.
Slashdot Mirror
There's still quite a bit of difference between public access to 3d printer files and public access to 3d printers.
I don't know that anymore.
The Macintosh I had no lid.
No Lace Cards? I had Apple IIe's to work with, loads of fun to be had there.
True enough- IF you can prove it was a murder and not an accident.
Can you prove intent with global climate change? If you ignore the utterly non-scientific process of "scientific consensus", do you even have enough data left to prove the murder weapon?
And in the long run, does it matter? We're still left with the decision to either adapt or die; we're far too late for any mitigation attempt to work. Blame the culprit is a waste of time in this case.
Species that are unable to adapt have been going extinct without mankind's help for 9/10ths of the planet's history. For the remaining 1/10th, we've been a major motivator of evolution, that's true- Dodos and wooly mammoths and the like. But we are also to the point with GMO research that we can be a major cause of increased adaptation- we can speed up evolution, and likely will, because beef is tasty (among many other species that are directly useful to us, such as bees). Speaking of that last, just saw a report on OPB about a pair of beekeepers with a unique solution to colony collapse disorder- they're breeding stronger queen bees that can live through Oregon winters.
If mankind wants to survive, food needs to be our top priority. Luckily, as I mentioned someplace above I think, food production is also an answer to excess atmospheric carbon. Especially if we keep locking our own carbon up in airtight containers buried in concrete when we die.
California has been in drought for 9000 of the last 12000 years. It's the normal state there. Switch from avacado to chia, and you'll be fine.
The Midwest is another story. We've been planting our favorite foods there so long that we've destroyed the ecology of the place. Thus the "Dust Bowl" phenomenon.
But there is one way to deal with this- bunch grass grazing. It's working well in the Eastern Oregon Desert; but it's hard to manage.
Adapt, work with the ecology, not against it, with climate change, not against it. The earth will survive, human beings are not guaranteed to; but we do have one advantage- invention.
I know of only one desert on earth that is entirely life free, and it's prevented from having rainfall by elevation (it's higher than most clouds, and in the rain shadow of the Andes which are even higher and prevent weather patterns from reaching there- hasn't had rainfall in 10,000 years).
Global climatic climate change droughts are different, they're more of the flash flood once in a blue moon variety, more like Death Valley in California- where the Native Americans have been agricultural for centuries, just on foods you won't eat.
And that is the real key. We have to get *real local* to survive this.
Cost? Responses to global climate change have nothing to do with cost.
You also misunderstand the main use of urban farming: increasing vegetable biomass is the point, not eliminating agricultural chemicals. Increase the vegetable biomass and you *will* remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and replace it with oxygen, that's how plants breathe.
http://www.towergarden.com/ is usable on household scale in high density urban areas.
Poor Japanese fishermen have been seasteading for centuries, using bamboo as their primary construction material. And yes, barnacles do get on everything, but once again, plant mass is the answer- when your mooring post grows faster than the barnacles attack.....
"wipe out agriculture"
Not necessarily. Change what we plant and what we eat, certainly, but there are plenty of drought resistant edibles out there. Tequila even comes from one of them.
It's easy to avoid ocean acidification. Urban farming, using drought resistant food plants that can get by on little water, to use photosynthesis to suck carbon out of the atmosphere.
Sea level rise can be handled with seasteading to give poorer populations a place to live. Their waste can be used for farming salt resistant food plants, like sea beans, on the boats, sucking more carbon out of the atmosphere, as well as converting the methane to energy for propulsion.
It's a matter of reimagining what our response is- away from prevention and towards adaptation.
The same group of people thought Pope Benedict was seriously misguided on economics
Doesn't need to be, but you have to stand in line behind the pedophiles, polygamists, and instinctual relationships, they were there first. Of course, now that homosexuals can marry, I suspect the redefinition will start happening quite regularly. Bestiality will get its turn.
I'd mod this up if I could. And I'd suggest it also applies in not only mental realms, but also the physical, and could well be an explanation for why NO women were able to pass the special forces exams for the military.
It only looks like satire or stupidity to the ignorant. It is, sadly, 100% correct, even if politically incorrect and decidedly chauvinist, it is what occurred in pre history when the division of labor was handed out.
My prius cost me $6000 used. There were $3000 used models available, but they were all Gen 1 and didn't have their battery packs replaced.
That's what over-the-air updates are for.
The problem is that easy to get at fossil fuels are gone. They've already been gotten, and they're not coming back easily.
Yes , that is the correct Syntax.
Will this post without Slashdot requiring me to be human? What is up with slashdot randomly logging me out while I'm typing a post?
I still do not know what is wrong with zone defense automated systems. Sometimes, you WANT segregation as a tactical diplomacy method, and we're to the point of "If it moves and is in the zone, kill it" technology far in excess of the low tech minefields of yesteryear.
Try...Catch with a named function call is easier to trace, and better yet, is nestable.
QBASIC is a later version as well, and is not equal to ANSI standard basic.
Basic != Visual Basic
The correct way, in classic basic, to designate type was with a suffix- such as "A$" for a string variable named a and "I%" for a loop variable of type integer. DIM was short for "dimension" and was only used for arrays.
Now get off my interpreter, you young whippersnapper.
Goto. Just don't.
I am informed by the people I interview with that algorithms are called patterns now, just like the Common Gateway Interface became REpresentful State Transfer. The only way to stay employed past 40 is to keep up on the jargon.