I've always been an in-principle fan of these SMARTs. I haven't driven one, but I've been inside one at various motor shows and there's plenty of space for two plus shopping or weekend luggage. You're not going to go trans-America with it, but to think about in that way is missing the point.
Then what are you waiting for? Just go and test drive one:-)
Be sure to try the roadster too. I personally wasn't very happy with it, there just isn't enough *anything* to justify the price... If it had 30% smaller price, or if it had a few more things as a standard (such as gear shift buttons/paddles in the steering wheel, better seat adjustments), then I'd be getting it in an instant. But current configuration with current price, can't justify spending that much in such a toy.
But don't take my word for it, go and try yourself!
Predictive texting is crap (everyone I know turns it off) so I can't see this being much better. Now a *really* smart phone would recognise telemarketing calls and refuse to ring, or just play a recorded message telling them you're dead.
In my experience, those who think predictive input are either
a) SMS addicts who type 20cps the old way with closed eyes and have repetitive stress injury in their thumbs
b) too dumb to learn the new way well enough to make it faster than the old way, or even too dumb to understand it at all (it *is* more complex, there's no denying that)
c) too stubborn to accept that the new way is better, just in principle
d) to lazy to spend a bit more time (not to mention brain activity!) writing next 10 messages, even though they'd more than make the time back during their next 100 messages
But trust me, if you write any number of messages, learning the new way is worth it.
Re:Well.... it would depend on the target market.
on
7 Megapixel Camera Phone
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Indeed, at lens size needed for 7 megapixels, they should be talking about a camera that has an integrated phone in one corner, instead of the other way around...
Of course it might be that it's only 2 megapixel camera that interpolates to double resolution or some other marketing gimmick...
Well, at least around here (Europe) many shops seem to have a very negative attitude towards taking pictures in their premises, including with camera phones. So if something like this Amazon thing becomes widespread, then banning picture taking could become more common and more strictly enforced. A pity really, since taking a picture of an item and it's price tag is a lot better than taking written notes...
I think the idea is, that in whatever show you are, you can send the barcode (printed on the back of the book usually) to Amazon, and then get their price for the same product.
I don't think a random bookstore would want Amazon prizes on their books, and I doubt printing presses would be willing to print Amazon prints with their barcodes, and Amazon prizes and offers change often so printed price would be outdated anyway.
I'd suspect that big enough electric motors and battery packs are just too expensive. Mostly hybrid cars (well, Prius at least) have quite a small electric engine and a smallish combustion engine, and when a lot of power is needed, both provide power for the wheels directly.
With stirling engines this would not be practical. And this has at least two drawbacks: 1. less efficient since energy *always* has to be converted to electricity first 2. more power (==cost, weight etc) is needed from electric motors and batteries.
So I guess that's why. But maybe with technology improvements these problems can be overcome so that stirling-hybrid cars become competitive technology.
I imagine a few feet of snow and -30 F temperatures render these things pretty useless.
Snow might do it, but -30F certainly should not, quite the opposite. The engine operates on temperature difference. Thermally isolating the "hot side" is relatively easy, so colder it is at the "cool side" the better. Of course extreme cold could make lubrication etc more difficult, but any temperature current automobile engines handle should be just fine for stirling engine too in that respect.
to service 20000 reciprocating engines. Even without combustion, that's a lot of moving parts. TFA made no mention of actual maintenance costs, but I can't believe the seal is the only thing that can go bad.
Stirling engines are mechanically extremely simple, low-RPM and low-vibration. I'd expect the mechanical parts to last "forever", considerng how long ball bearings, cam shafts etc of even cheap automobile engines last (excluding manufacturing defects etc) in much more hostile environment. There's really surprisingly little wear under low loads, and stirling engines only have low loads.
Stick an ostrich there (birds being the closest relative of dinosaurs), and it will be dead in no time.
Not sure what you mean by that, but I'd like to clarify that ostriches are about as capable of survining in the colder climes as are for example cows, so they are not especially "fragile". Ie they would not survive on their own, but only because they probably would not find enough food during wintertime, not so much because it's too cold. Just google for ostrich farms in the north and you'll find plenty of examples.
No, I have not seen the Day After Tomorrow. Then again, I can't even watch Armageddon without having to leave the room at some of the more unplausible parts, so maybe it's better that way.
"Looming climatic chaos?" You have got to be joking.
No. But let's just say that I very much hope that I'm wrong and you are right... I guess coming decades will tell.
Cite please? It's the height of vanity to think that anything like us could effect world climates with any significant effect. All the power ever produced by mankind (including nuclear weapons) probably wouldn't equal one hurricane.
First Google hit on a subject of man made vs natural CO2 emissions by volcanoes (the only natural mechanism that brings *new* CO2 from the crust to the biosphere) here . First google hit about us people reducing forests of the world here , telling that humans have cut down 20%-50% of *all* forests on Earth on a very short time scale. And keep in mind that we have oxygen atmosphere only because there are plants to sustain it, and forests are a big part of that. Just look at Venus to find out what kind of atmosphere Earth might have if there was no plant life...
Thinking that we have no effect on Earth is like thinking that dumping your garbage out of the window (the Middle Ages style, you know) does not make a city filthy, it all gets absorbed by the nature, eaten by the pigs, or something...
*Life* has made the Earth what it is today. Human life is also life, and it's the other way around: it's vanity to think that we're above mere animals and plants with no technology that made the Earth what it is today, so that our actions (altering atmosphere, turning large areas of forest to desert etc) have no consequences.
Do you even understand the mechanism that causes the Gulf stream to rotate clockwise around the North Atlantic? Why do you think that eastern Asia has warm water like we have here in Florida, but California has cold water, like people have in Europe?
Not sure what you mean by that, since Europe has extremely warm water (comparatively speaking), thanks to the Gulf stream... In Siberia and Canada it's permafrost where in Europe there are still lush fields and big forests. Also, Gulf stream has stopped or changed direction before, so it's not very far fetched to think it would do it again. So I have to wonder how well *you* understand the issue...
Hed Herring. Nobody doubts that urban areas are visible at night due to lighting. It's a very large stretch to jump from that to "people are EEEVIL." Using your own argument, I add this extension: the Democrats are at fault. Since the people that voted for Kerry live in the areas that show up on your satellite photos, THEY must be the ones responsible for Global Warming and the Death of The Environment.
I don't quite follow. You can also see forests in satellite photos, as well as you can see human fields and cities. By your logic, I'd think trees are evil too, or what? I don't quite follow your logic, really...
The point isn' "humans are evil". The point is that humans have an impact (and a big one at that). Why is it so hard to consider that: 1. the climate and biosphere has (had) a balance before major human impact (ie beforeCO2 increse, cutting down forests, expanding deserts etc) 2. after humans have started to alter some variables (eg the ones listed above), the balance isn't any more 3. when there's no balance, things will start to change, until variables have stopped changing and a new balance is found 4. there are much more ways for things to get much worse for most of us, than there are ways for things to get better for most of us. Just things changing fast is expensive in the *best* case without sealevel rising or anything, since everything (from heating/cooling to rainwater handling) is optimized for how things are now.
To do anything else would be derilection of duty. It is not in the United States' interest to sign a treaty like the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty that does not have fair reciprocation between the signatories.
Kyoto treaty itself may be bad, but it is very much in the US interestes to somehow find a way to avoid the looming climatic chaos. I'd hate to think what happens to, say, New York, if ocean level rises 20 meters, or if hurricanes start sweeping then entire east coast of US, or if Golf stream going North gets replaced with a freezing stream coming straight from the Arctic, or if it completely stops raining in the Midwest, or any other seriously bad thing that may or may not be in store for us...
There's so much evidence that what we are doing to the climate is going to cause big changes, that I don't really see how anybody with a brain could just think everything is ok. And I hate the defeatist attitude that if something is going wrong, it's not our fault, it's 100% natural process and we can't have any impact on it one way or the other. I mean, just look at a satellite photo of Earth, and then tell me humans can't have any impact on a global scale...
Oh well, I'm mentally prepared to live in an igloo and hunt other people for food, if the worst happens...;-)
So if you're two gay neighbors get married how the hell are you FORCED to "support" their marraige. How about you try this: Mind your own fucking business and let other people live their own lives.
FYI, in some parts of the world, married couples get for example tax breaks. So if they pay less tax, everybody else pays a little more. And IMHO this is equally wrong wether it's a gay or hetero marriage.
Marriage is very much already defined by most people as being between a man and a woman. It was never a generic term. How you can suggest otherwise is beyond me.
Well, here where I live, the word meaning "marriage" does not currently exclude gay marriages from the definition of the word. Nobody I know would even think of using some other word than "marriage" for a "registered partnership" between two (or more...) people. How you can suggest otherwise is beyond me.
What about "getting married"? I suppose it implies starting of a marriage so it's out too.
Is word "wedding" still ok, or do you want to define it so that only when people are of different sex, they can have a "wedding", otherwise it's just a ceremony that looks exactly like a wedding ceremony but isn't?
So if "two people get married in a wedding ceremony", but they are gay, how would you rephrase that so you're happy?
You'll have to come up with another word than "marriage" for homosexuals, because that word is taken, just as "white" can't reasonably and meaningfully be redefined to also mean "purple".
Ah, but there's a meaningful difference between white and purple. There's no meaningful differencde between homosexual and heterosexual partnership defined by word "marriage". Well, there is if you want the word to imply that there is a possibility for the male and female being biological father and mother for common children. But if you add that requirement, then for example sterile people could not get married by that definition. On the other hand, if you define marriage to mean a partnership defined in the Bible, don't be surprised if others disagree.
Marriage is very much a social term, and as social structures change, also the meaning of the term must change. Language lives with the society, words get new meanings etc. But since "marriage" is an archaic term that doesn't have a definite meaning in modern language and global community, it should be replaced for example with "registered parnership" in all legal text etc, to avoid misunderstandings and confusion about the core issue. "Marriage" should be reserved for religious contexts etc, where the ambiguiety would not matter since context would be more clearly defined.
Divorces or child traumatisation don't enter into this, nor whether marriages are right or wrong.
If one type of "registered partnership" is given preferential treatment by law because some people think it's the only "right" way to have such a partnership, and other types are denied same priviledges (eg tax breaks, divorce law protections), then it does enter into this. If somebody thinks it's wrong and causes a lot of undue suffering (which is does), why should they pay more taxes so that those "married" can pay less?
Please do not forget (or violate) the civil rights of people (voters, business owners, etc) who would be compelled against their own consciences & religions to accept, bless, and fund gay marriages based on the decisions of activist judges.
But if everybody is forced to support heterosexual marriages even if it's against their consciense or faith, that's completely ok?
Right.
Just because something (the type of marriage we have these days, which encourages divorces and traumatizes thousands of children for life every year) is generally accepted, it doesn't make it right. Otherwise we'd still be selling slaves, too.
Oh come on, how can you possibly compare Russia's valiant fight against terrorism for example in Tchetchenia with China's cruel rule over Tibet? Or compare China's stand against Taiwan with US embargo of evil Cuba? Can't you see China does not deserve to have any international co-operation, and their space flight capacity should actually be bombed to dust!/sarcasm
And to say that we can't let people die in large numbers in the space progra 'for political reasons' says more about you as a person than it does about those in charge of space programs, fortunately. I think you need to take a close look at sorting out your priorities if you think that human life - or any life - is that cheap.
We let people die in various ways and huge numbers all the time... The economic choices we make help millions to die in 3rd world. The car industry makes thousands of people (both drivers, passengers and pedestrians) die every year. Pollution causes many many unncessary deaths every year. And so on.
The point is, whatever human activity, people die! Can't stop it, fact of life.
So the question becomes, how many people are allowed to die, what is the acceptable risk per person. And if you say "no death is acceptable" then I sure hope you for example don't drive a car, since a lot of people kill other people with their cars every day, and only way it can be stopped is to stop driving cars completely.
If we want to progress science and technology, we have to accept higher rate of deaths than is acceptable in "normal life". If we don't, we can as well give up and let those willing to take the risks to reap the rewards as well.
Sampling your own nasal secretions (snot:) is also supposed to help you boost your immune system, but I think it's better if you do it as a kid.
Yeah, immune system develops when you're a kid, and when you're adult, it won't get much better. Or, as some countryside doctor was rumoured to have said, those who don't play horse dung war as a kid won't be healthy as adults:-)
Nah, it's just the other way around! This *proves* that sun has cycles we don't understand, and therefore global warming can't have anything to do with human activity.
Actually, we have a pretty good idea of the dynamics: increased temperatures and CO2 lead to more vigourous plant growth, which leads to more plant-eating animals, which leads to more animal-eating animals. Biodiversity increases, and the ecosystem improves. Even humans will do better; there will be more food for us, and less hardship during winters (which will reduce our need for fuel, btw.)
Plant growth increases only if the other necessary componentes are there. Good growth also needs - water - good soil - sun's light - land area
And, unlike perhaps ever before in Earth history (except perhaps asteroid impact killing almost everything, but I don't think that's a very positive comparison), we humans are using up a lot of land area (doesn't apply to sea plankton of course), making a lot of good soil go bad (deserts expanding, rainforests being cut and their fragile soil getting destroyed etc) etc. And I don't know if there are any reliable estimates of what will happen to average cloud coverage when CO2 levels go up, temperature goes up, there's more water vaporizing etc.
So just assuming that increased CO2 levels will lead to increased plant growth is gross oversimplification. And that goes for everything else, we do *not* know the dynamics even if we think we do. We can make guesses, but there are too many unknown variables to really know.
As far as the ocean levels rising, it isn't happening, at least not for as long as satellites have been measuring ocean levels. Apparently, although the ocean level varies over time, its average level has been the same for many years, as measured by satellite. But when measured from the shorelines, it seems to be rising. What actually must be happening is that the shorelines are sinking (at least around the measurement points.)
Well, we aren't seeing major melting over Greenland or Antarctic *land* area yet, and ice melting from mountain glaciers is insignificant amount and can get largely absorbed on the way to the sea anyway.
So the question is, will significant amount of glaciers over land (ie Greenland and Antarctic) melt or not. I dont' know if there are any credible claims that those melting would not affect sea levels, so the question that remains is, will they melt or not. If temperature rises, they might, or they might not, and we have really no way to know, other than waiting and seeing, since climate is so complex and, again, we can only guess at some of the variables.
Not really true. Sure, we're taking carbon out of the ground and releasing it into the atmosphere, but only 2/3 of it seems to stay there; reabsorption occurs, and may be able to hold more than we know.
Then again, they might be more limited, or at least slower, than we hope for...
Besides, even "only" 1/3 of the carbon we dig out of the earth ending up as extre CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't sound very reassuring.
Furthermore, our contribution may be insignificant compared to what the earth is releasing. As I stated above, CO2 increases seem to be caused by higher temperatures (perhaps released from warmer oceans) and that contribution might be much more than we release.
Indeed, more CO2 being released by highter temperatures is basiclaly the requirement to the run-off global warming. I wouldn't be so carefree about our CO2 emissions having no significant impact. We just don't know what are the dynamics of the atmosphere and biosphere as CO2 levels and temperatures increase. At the very least we should be prepared for ocean level rising, hurricanes increasing and all that. The nature will take care of itself (hopefully), but our economy won't...
We're not really replacing the carbon sinks either. In some areas we might be, but it's a fact that the forests in the United States, and probably much of the rest of the world, are growing in size, largely due to the higher amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Pine trees grow up to three times faster at today's CO2 levels than at the levels in 1900, and all other plants grow faster too (anywhere from 10% to 300%, depending on species and conditions.) This could very well be the 'counter-balance' mechanism that prevents runaway global warming; higher CO2 levels cause the vegetative carbon sinks to grow more plentiful.
What I'd like to see is much bigger emphasis on increasing carbon sinks, by increaseing vegetation growth. What ever carbon we dig out of the ground, we should also grow enough plants to get comparable amount CO2 out of the atmosphere... There would be a lot of interesting applications of this overall approach, such as "wood gas" engines for use in agriculture and forestry (where getting fuel mass for the engine would not be a logistical problem) to reduce dependancy on oil and total output of CO2.
Now here's where the trivia fact comes in. Trees "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" oxygen.
A common misconception. Trees inhale O2, use it to "burn" sugar to get energy to grow etc, and then exhale CO2, just like we do.
They *also* take CO2 (and water) from the atmosphere and with the power of sunlight (or artificial light as well, as sometimes used in green houses for example) make above mentioned energy-rich sugar out of it, and also make and release O2 in the process. Fortunately for us they release more O2 than they use, so there's some for us to breathe too...
Slashdot Mirror
Then what are you waiting for? Just go and test drive one
Be sure to try the roadster too. I personally wasn't very happy with it, there just isn't enough *anything* to justify the price... If it had 30% smaller price, or if it had a few more things as a standard (such as gear shift buttons/paddles in the steering wheel, better seat adjustments), then I'd be getting it in an instant. But current configuration with current price, can't justify spending that much in such a toy.
But don't take my word for it, go and try yourself!
If I were a SUV driver in a collision with one of these, I'd be more worried about the entire Smart ending up in my lap *in* my SUV
In my experience, those who think predictive input are either
a) SMS addicts who type 20cps the old way with closed eyes and have repetitive stress injury in their thumbs
b) too dumb to learn the new way well enough to make it faster than the old way, or even too dumb to understand it at all (it *is* more complex, there's no denying that)
c) too stubborn to accept that the new way is better, just in principle
d) to lazy to spend a bit more time (not to mention brain activity!) writing next 10 messages, even though they'd more than make the time back during their next 100 messages
But trust me, if you write any number of messages, learning the new way is worth it.
Indeed, at lens size needed for 7 megapixels, they should be talking about a camera that has an integrated phone in one corner, instead of the other way around...
Of course it might be that it's only 2 megapixel camera that interpolates to double resolution or some other marketing gimmick...
Well, at least around here (Europe) many shops seem to have a very negative attitude towards taking pictures in their premises, including with camera phones. So if something like this Amazon thing becomes widespread, then banning picture taking could become more common and more strictly enforced. A pity really, since taking a picture of an item and it's price tag is a lot better than taking written notes...
I think the idea is, that in whatever show you are, you can send the barcode (printed on the back of the book usually) to Amazon, and then get their price for the same product.
I don't think a random bookstore would want Amazon prizes on their books, and I doubt printing presses would be willing to print Amazon prints with their barcodes, and Amazon prizes and offers change often so printed price would be outdated anyway.
Bleh (replying to my own post), I misread the parent, talking about different subject. Need more coffee...
I'd suspect that big enough electric motors and battery packs are just too expensive. Mostly hybrid cars (well, Prius at least) have quite a small electric engine and a smallish combustion engine, and when a lot of power is needed, both provide power for the wheels directly.
With stirling engines this would not be practical. And this has at least two drawbacks:
1. less efficient since energy *always* has to be converted to electricity first
2. more power (==cost, weight etc) is needed from electric motors and batteries.
So I guess that's why. But maybe with technology improvements these problems can be overcome so that stirling-hybrid cars become competitive technology.
Snow might do it, but -30F certainly should not, quite the opposite. The engine operates on temperature difference. Thermally isolating the "hot side" is relatively easy, so colder it is at the "cool side" the better. Of course extreme cold could make lubrication etc more difficult, but any temperature current automobile engines handle should be just fine for stirling engine too in that respect.
Stirling engines are mechanically extremely simple, low-RPM and low-vibration. I'd expect the mechanical parts to last "forever", considerng how long ball bearings, cam shafts etc of even cheap automobile engines last (excluding manufacturing defects etc) in much more hostile environment. There's really surprisingly little wear under low loads, and stirling engines only have low loads.
Not sure what you mean by that, but I'd like to clarify that ostriches are about as capable of survining in the colder climes as are for example cows, so they are not especially "fragile". Ie they would not survive on their own, but only because they probably would not find enough food during wintertime, not so much because it's too cold. Just google for ostrich farms in the north and you'll find plenty of examples.
No. But let's just say that I very much hope that I'm wrong and you are right... I guess coming decades will tell.
First Google hit on a subject of man made vs natural CO2 emissions by volcanoes (the only natural mechanism that brings *new* CO2 from the crust to the biosphere) here . First google hit about us people reducing forests of the world here , telling that humans have cut down 20%-50% of *all* forests on Earth on a very short time scale. And keep in mind that we have oxygen atmosphere only because there are plants to sustain it, and forests are a big part of that. Just look at Venus to find out what kind of atmosphere Earth might have if there was no plant life...
Thinking that we have no effect on Earth is like thinking that dumping your garbage out of the window (the Middle Ages style, you know) does not make a city filthy, it all gets absorbed by the nature, eaten by the pigs, or something...
*Life* has made the Earth what it is today. Human life is also life, and it's the other way around: it's vanity to think that we're above mere animals and plants with no technology that made the Earth what it is today, so that our actions (altering atmosphere, turning large areas of forest to desert etc) have no consequences.
Not sure what you mean by that, since Europe has extremely warm water (comparatively speaking), thanks to the Gulf stream... In Siberia and Canada it's permafrost where in Europe there are still lush fields and big forests. Also, Gulf stream has stopped or changed direction before, so it's not very far fetched to think it would do it again. So I have to wonder how well *you* understand the issue...
I don't quite follow. You can also see forests in satellite photos, as well as you can see human fields and cities. By your logic, I'd think trees are evil too, or what? I don't quite follow your logic, really...
The point isn' "humans are evil". The point is
that humans have an impact (and a big one at that). Why is it so hard to consider that:
1. the climate and biosphere has (had) a balance before major human impact (ie beforeCO2 increse, cutting down forests, expanding deserts etc)
2. after humans have started to alter some variables (eg the ones listed above), the balance isn't any more
3. when there's no balance, things will start to change, until variables have stopped changing and a new balance is found
4. there are much more ways for things to get much worse for most of us, than there are ways for things to get better for most of us. Just things changing fast is expensive in the *best* case without sealevel rising or anything, since everything (from heating/cooling to rainwater handling) is optimized for how things are now.
Kyoto treaty itself may be bad, but it is very much in the US interestes to somehow find a way to avoid the looming climatic chaos. I'd hate to think what happens to, say, New York, if ocean level rises 20 meters, or if hurricanes start sweeping then entire east coast of US, or if Golf stream going North gets replaced with a freezing stream coming straight from the Arctic, or if it completely stops raining in the Midwest, or any other seriously bad thing that may or may not be in store for us...
There's so much evidence that what we are doing to the climate is going to cause big changes, that I don't really see how anybody with a brain could just think everything is ok. And I hate the defeatist attitude that if something is going wrong, it's not our fault, it's 100% natural process and we can't have any impact on it one way or the other. I mean, just look at a satellite photo of Earth, and then tell me humans can't have any impact on a global scale...
Oh well, I'm mentally prepared to live in an igloo and hunt other people for food, if the worst happens...
FYI, in some parts of the world, married couples get for example tax breaks. So if they pay less tax, everybody else pays a little more. And IMHO this is equally wrong wether it's a gay or hetero marriage.
Well, here where I live, the word meaning "marriage" does not currently exclude gay marriages from the definition of the word. Nobody I know would even think of using some other word than "marriage" for a "registered partnership" between two (or more...) people. How you can suggest otherwise is beyond me.
What about "getting married"? I suppose it implies starting of a marriage so it's out too.
Is word "wedding" still ok, or do you want to define it so that only when people are of different sex, they can have a "wedding", otherwise it's just a ceremony that looks exactly like a wedding ceremony but isn't?
So if "two people get married in a wedding ceremony", but they are gay, how would you rephrase that so you're happy?
Ah, but there's a meaningful difference between white and purple. There's no meaningful differencde between homosexual and heterosexual partnership defined by word "marriage". Well, there is if you want the word to imply that there is a possibility for the male and female being biological father and mother for common children. But if you add that requirement, then for example sterile people could not get married by that definition. On the other hand, if you define marriage to mean a partnership defined in the Bible, don't be surprised if others disagree.
Marriage is very much a social term, and as social structures change, also the meaning of the term must change. Language lives with the society, words get new meanings etc. But since "marriage" is an archaic term that doesn't have a definite meaning in modern language and global community, it should be replaced for example with "registered parnership" in all legal text etc, to avoid misunderstandings and confusion about the core issue. "Marriage" should be reserved for religious contexts etc, where the ambiguiety would not matter since context would be more clearly defined.
If one type of "registered partnership" is given preferential treatment by law because some people think it's the only "right" way to have such a partnership, and other types are denied same priviledges (eg tax breaks, divorce law protections), then it does enter into this. If somebody thinks it's wrong and causes a lot of undue suffering (which is does), why should they pay more taxes so that those "married" can pay less?
But if everybody is forced to support heterosexual marriages even if it's against their consciense or faith, that's completely ok?
Right.
Just because something (the type of marriage we have these days, which encourages divorces and traumatizes thousands of children for life every year) is generally accepted, it doesn't make it right. Otherwise we'd still be selling slaves, too.
Oh come on, how can you possibly compare Russia's valiant fight against terrorism for example in Tchetchenia with China's cruel rule over Tibet? Or compare China's stand against Taiwan with US embargo of evil Cuba? Can't you see China does not deserve to have any international co-operation, and their space flight capacity should actually be bombed to dust! /sarcasm
We let people die in various ways and huge numbers all the time... The economic choices we make help millions to die in 3rd world. The car industry makes thousands of people (both drivers, passengers and pedestrians) die every year. Pollution causes many many unncessary deaths every year. And so on.
The point is, whatever human activity, people die! Can't stop it, fact of life.
So the question becomes, how many people are allowed to die, what is the acceptable risk per person. And if you say "no death is acceptable" then I sure hope you for example don't drive a car, since a lot of people kill other people with their cars every day, and only way it can be stopped is to stop driving cars completely.
If we want to progress science and technology, we have to accept higher rate of deaths than is acceptable in "normal life". If we don't, we can as well give up and let those willing to take the risks to reap the rewards as well.
Yeah, immune system develops when you're a kid, and when you're adult, it won't get much better. Or, as some countryside doctor was rumoured to have said, those who don't play horse dung war as a kid won't be healthy as adults
Nah, it's just the other way around! This *proves* that sun has cycles we don't understand, and therefore global warming can't have anything to do with human activity.
Plant growth increases only if the other necessary componentes are there. Good growth also needs
- water
- good soil
- sun's light
- land area
And, unlike perhaps ever before in Earth history (except perhaps asteroid impact killing almost everything, but I don't think that's a very positive comparison), we humans are using up a lot of land area (doesn't apply to sea plankton of course), making a lot of good soil go bad (deserts expanding, rainforests being cut and their fragile soil getting destroyed etc) etc. And I don't know if there are any reliable estimates of what will happen to average cloud coverage when CO2 levels go up, temperature goes up, there's more water vaporizing etc.
So just assuming that increased CO2 levels will lead to increased plant growth is gross oversimplification. And that goes for everything else, we do *not* know the dynamics even if we think we do. We can make guesses, but there are too many unknown variables to really know.
Well, we aren't seeing major melting over Greenland or Antarctic *land* area yet, and ice melting from mountain glaciers is insignificant amount and can get largely absorbed on the way to the sea anyway.
So the question is, will significant amount of glaciers over land (ie Greenland and Antarctic) melt or not. I dont' know if there are any credible claims that those melting would not affect sea levels, so the question that remains is, will they melt or not. If temperature rises, they might, or they might not, and we have really no way to know, other than waiting and seeing, since climate is so complex and, again, we can only guess at some of the variables.
Then again, they might be more limited, or at least slower, than we hope for...
Besides, even "only" 1/3 of the carbon we dig out of the earth ending up as extre CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't sound very reassuring.
Indeed, more CO2 being released by highter temperatures is basiclaly the requirement to the run-off global warming. I wouldn't be so carefree about our CO2 emissions having no significant impact. We just don't know what are the dynamics of the atmosphere and biosphere as CO2 levels and temperatures increase. At the very least we should be prepared for ocean level rising, hurricanes increasing and all that. The nature will take care of itself (hopefully), but our economy won't...
What I'd like to see is much bigger emphasis on increasing carbon sinks, by increaseing vegetation growth. What ever carbon we dig out of the ground, we should also grow enough plants to get comparable amount CO2 out of the atmosphere... There would be a lot of interesting applications of this overall approach, such as "wood gas" engines for use in agriculture and forestry (where getting fuel mass for the engine would not be a logistical problem) to reduce dependancy on oil and total output of CO2.
A common misconception. Trees inhale O2, use it to "burn" sugar to get energy to grow etc, and then exhale CO2, just like we do.
They *also* take CO2 (and water) from the atmosphere and with the power of sunlight (or artificial light as well, as sometimes used in green houses for example) make above mentioned energy-rich sugar out of it, and also make and release O2 in the process. Fortunately for us they release more O2 than they use, so there's some for us to breathe too...
Nah, it's just the topic of discussion. Impossible to tell if someone is trying to be funny or just a bit... how should I say... under-educated.