Neither farmers nor farmers wives "worked" in the context of a labor census. You cannot be fired from your farm, for instance. They were self-employed and and self-supporting generally providing for themselves, with a little extra left over for trade. If they were lucky, they had enough to have some luxury. Labor and employment as we discuss it today is working for someone else, and did not apply to the general masses prior to the effects of the industrial revolution kicking up productivity and freeing enough people from subsistence farming to make a difference.
You're operating on a vacuum assumption in your own head without looking at the world around you. You go, "Oh, that doesn't make sense to me, so I'll make up bullshit and claim everything based on solid analysis and understanding is made-up bullshit."
Put up or shut up time: predict the next major recession. Right now. Can't? Hmmm....
So, with that out the way, you've made some other major assertions that many just don't agree with:
No, the cost-of-living hasn't gone down; the standard-of-living has gone up.... That means, yes, the *buying* *power* income from a single job has increased (median).
I'd say inflation has done a number on the median income and reduced disposable income to lower levels. So I suppose it's a good thing those toys cost less, because there is less to spend on them.
I already demonstrated that we're in a labor force participation rate bubble,
TBBA (Truth by Blatant Assertion) Merely pointing at a graph or mentioning various cherry picked statistics doesn't prove a bubble.
Let's not argue so much over *why* labor force participation suddenly grew. Let's ask another question: Why was it so low in 1970? Well, I can find as far back as 1947 at a glance, and the answer is it's always been that low.
Actually, let's do discuss it, because it's quite relevant. You see, in the late 60s, with women's lib and societal upheavel in the US and the rejection of the June Cleaver role, women actually demanded that they be treated as equals in society. Because of the aforementioned appliances etc, they had more free time and they not only went to work but stayed at work, developing careers as a normal activity. That increased the labor pool, it was not a bubble, but a raising of the available level. Now you can dispute that the pool got bigger or address the drop off since the peak, but you can't say the increase was a bubble as several fundamental shifts in society occurred to drive that effect. That would be like saying an asteroid only caused some minor temporary damage 65 million years ago.
Globalization started in the 19th century--some economists want to take this back further--with the reduction of shipping costs. That whole shipping textiles and spices and liquor around? That's outsource labor, pushing manufacture to cheaper labor markets.
Really? Try the 70s for when textiles really started losing business fast. You're seriously stretching there with ancient trade. That trade was for goods unique to production areas, not a move to replace domestic production with cheaper foreign production. It's a simple test really, was whatever was being brought in made domestically as well? No? Then it wasn't outsourcing.
You might want to checkyournumbers as it is obvious that real median income has dropped since the 70s, with the exception of the last report, which still indicates that median income has dropped since 2000. Add to that that actual cost of living has increased....
...Clothing currently equates to 2.8% of annual household budgets; if, instead, it equated to 10.3%, what would happen to the 7.5% of products each household could no longer afford? What would happen to those jobs?
This is still an overly simplistic view of economics, which itself is a pseudo science evolved from a bunch of hand-waving and unproven assumptions. If it weren't, there would never be any surprises on Wall St.
What's happening now is that that the overall household budget has shrunken, so originally they were paying $10/yr for clothing, and now they're paying $2/yr, but they're making $80/yr instead of $100/yr. So, the net effect is that their real spending power has shrunken. (numbers chosen for simplicity of understanding, real numbers do follow those representative trends)
So in the vacuum of economics, what you say is true. Reality, however, isn't so kind. The current outsourcing trends are akin to cutting your own throat. You can only bleed wealth for so long, before you're no longer wealthy.
The answer is not that people would work more. We're not going back to an economy where we used a different technique; we're going to an economy where we've cut back working hours by a high-tech technique, but didn't cut back costs.
Where we are going is an economy where productivity keeps increasing compared to labor hours spent. Let's take that to an absurd level: 1 person works full time, and grows all the food necessary for the country. What do the rest of the people do? This isn't actually a hypothetical question as robotics are already in play in agriculture and will only increase in the next decade. As robots get better and are able to build other robots, you see the effect spread. This scenario replaces "outsourcing" with "replacement labor" to remove workers from the pool.
This is well-understood economics....my model....
Yep, just reinforces my statement above - economics has yet to become an actual science. We're still in the studying phases because we cannot model it accurately. It's much like trying to model brownian motion, weather, or solar flares, because individual human actions cannot be predicted and do have effects as they aggregate. Everything beyond that is an assumption based on historical activity. The mouse turned right the last 3 times, it'll turn right this time again... oops, left turn.
That is no longer the case, with the total labor force shrinking every year since 2006 [bls.gov]. It's actually worse than that, if you go further back.
We've been in a labor force bubble since 1970. Housewives gave way to working couples and middle-class families living at an extended standard-of-living (two people work, draw more income, and buy more stuff, living like rich people--we've normalized this, so they're just middle-class). We didn't replace those housewives with maids and servants in every household; on the other hand, we *did* get nice dishwashers, washing machines, and other tools to dramatically reduce the domestic working hour load.
You'll note that dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, and those other nice tools all arrived *prior* to the dual income family becoming standard. Why? Because the income from a single job has been degraded since the 70s as more and more of those middle class jobs exited via outsourcing, to be replaced by lower wage jobs, if at all. (something you have yet to discount)
It's the only way it's worked. Initially we shipped labor intensive work like textiles out. Then more expensive jobs that included things like EPA restrictions. As the manufacturing base overseas ram
Trump is a symptom that the current political system is broken. Enough people are upset that they latched onto someone who focuses and represents their anger. It's why his numbers don't plummet when he makes one of his rather common blunders that would sink any of his rivals. Instead, his supporters ratchet up their support. It's almost a mob mentality stoked by invective. What caused this to come about? Well, when is the last time you voted "for" a politician? Maybe the 80s? Ever since, it's been the lesser of two evils, which has devolved to a point now that there are no choices left. This is also why Sanders is in the position he's in, because he's an outsider and pretty much unelectable as president until this presidential election. I personally would like to see a Sanders/Trump matchup in November, because either way, politics would be actually interesting for a change.
In domestic economics, you actually create more local jobs by aggressively outsourcing, so long as your labor balance slides more slowly than your wealth. That is: If 50% of your employment is domestic and you save enough money outsourcing to create 10% more jobs, you have the *same* number of domestic employees if you end with 45.45% of your employment domestic and the rest outsourced. You start with 50 Chinese and 50 American workers, you eliminate 10 American jobs in favor of 10 Chinese jobs, and you get 40 and 60; along the way you find you can sell 10% more stuff, so you employ 10% more workers, and end up with 50 and 60--10 new Chinese jobs overall, more stuff being made for the same amount of money, and the 50 American workers are living a higher standard-of-living because they can buy more stuff since it's all cheaper.
I see you drank the koolaid.
So I take 10 high paying american jobs, outsource them for 50% cost overseas. Optimistically those 10 high paying american jobs become a combination of 10 mid to low-paying jobs. They're still employed! Yay! Because unless you can prove concretely that outsourcing any high paying job results in a new higher paying job being created, what you're doing is lowering the pool. Your own logic states this unequivocally in that products are cheaper because of lowered labor costs. That only worked while we were over-employed. That is no longer the case, with the total labor force shrinking every year since 2006. It's actually worse than that, if you go further back. Then you look at what an individual makes, and that has shrunk if you clip the top couple of percent. Yes, they make so much it skews the entire result set, but take the median 90 or so percent, and you'll see that real earning power has shrunk. The reason this hasn't had the major negative impact you'd assume is because the family unit has gone from 1 to 2 workers supporting the family in many cases, or people are co-habiting more and sharing costs. It's not the rosy picture you're painting for sure.
Obviously, if you start shoveling jobs out to China like crazy without creating new American jobs, this doesn't work. Historically, that's not how it's worked; it's not even how it works today.
It's the only way it's worked. Initially we shipped labor intensive work like textiles out. Then more expensive jobs that included things like EPA restrictions. As the manufacturing base overseas ramped up, it wasn't long before more and more of those higher paying middle class jobs all left, if they could. There were some initial jobs created to build up the infrastructure to support the imports, but once done that number shrank again and now there are fewer total jobs. And lets not forget that the imports don't pay into the federal tax pool, leaving that burden more heavily weighed on the populace, as the production base which used to pay taxes now doesn't.
And then you view Disney's "Return to the Vault!" [Tm] program as a case in point of making things artificially scarce to maintain value over time, or even Wu-Tang's Clan's Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, which value went up because of the copyright exclusivity.
Agreed. This doesn't surprise me one bit. Maybe the name gives it away... you know... that these Things communicate over the Internet?
I would disagree entirely with your premise. In most cases, people would be perfectly happy to have LAN only connected devices. That is how mine are setup, regardless of what they might "want" to do.
I think the founders had it right, 14 years (which would be automatic under Berne now, which is fine) with a 14 year application (fee) for extension. 28 years is a long time, longer than most works will ever remain relevant. And for those that do, isn't the public domain the right place for them?
Not exactly true. Don't buy the devices that are pure clients of a central server. Everything else works standalone, and generally is already or can be hacked. After all, if you buy it, it is yours. "Violating" the EULA merely means that it is likely you won't be under warranty.
All true. I personally would probably prefer to not run any systemd distros, and will avoid them for a while. Just far too flaky and troublesome. initd works just fine. Maybe in 5 years systemd will either have settled down and be usable, or a new service will come in to replace it.
Hundreds of acres is nothing compared to millions of acres GAINED.
Do you truly not understand the size of the Earth, more specifically the size of all continental mass in the northern hemisphere?
I do, but do you understand measurements? To make it easy for you: 640 acres per square mile. I merely said hundreds because that's what a quick search revealed as minimum losses over the last millennia or two for 1 specific location that happens to be a very rich arable area surrounded by a lot of substandard agricultural land. The actual losses are much much higher. The sea level changes being discussed for the next 50 years could well match that damage, and note that the NPR story is stating that currently arable land is already suffering salt infusion with those affected farmers having no where to go.
it would be better to have the robots.txt file delivered and then act upon it yourself for those known to be bad actors, like a proxy. Think of the wonderful results you could have search engines display if they ignored your robots.txt. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
You sir are fitting to work as help desk for the rest of your life. In case you didn't notice yet, one size does not fit all. If you can figured that out then you have a fighting chance at becoming a good technology advisor which will open up many doors.
You may have just won a space on my journal page with that sanctimonious quote. It took me 10 minutes to recover enough from laughing just to post this reply.
Since I don't keep up with AAA games in general, I can only comment on those I personally own. I also prefer not to run Steam in general. I am sure I'm not alone. There must be a market for non windows games since so many are being released on OSX/Linux, or are you saying companies are just throwing money away to make that claim?
You clearly didn't consider the facts entirely - any tiny loss made up of seaweed making inroads in river deltas (which you can still grow around BTW, there are a number of plants with high salt tolerance).
But even if it killed everything in 30 miles of a river, the vast increase in aria be land with a longer northern growing season makes up for it by several orders of magnitude.
This is an excellent example of "Truth by Blatant Assertion" (TBBA). For starters, note that vast areas of highly productive arable land in the US, for instance, will likely become desert or arid resulting in significantly less production. Weather patterns further north are currently not exactly pro-agriculture even if things warmed up. The tundra areas especially are relatively dry. It is only supposition that there will be increases of arable land that will offset the known losses that will occur. Even if there were significant increases in the far northern hemisphere, it doesn't help the hundreds of millions (billions?) that don't live in there and will be unlikely to be able to move there.
It's only common sense that more energy into a system means more life. That's what life does best.
Apparently your common sense is broken. See Venus for starters.
There are other AAA games that are not FPS which suit me fine (not a FPS fan, don't care to see other players hopping around like crickets on crack). How is X-Windows not multi-threaded? Unless you're talking about the bugs in xlib when multiple threads share 1 Display connection, as one example. But you can certainly run XWindows programs with multiple threads. Coding them correctly, however, has always been challenging for any performance type application. As for Linux graphics drivers, there were a few announcements recently that may hold promise. It would certainly be nice if those bore fruit, because those same drivers might be usable on BSD as well.
Coastal land is lost. How much of the agricultural land of the Earth is coastal? Well, some of it is. But it's not clear that the total effect is large.
Yes, and new coastal land will be created in some areas, meaning more land lost than merely what goes under water. Salt water inflows will penetrate to some distance inland, greatly affected by soil type and geography. In low-lying areas, like river deltas, that has been shown in the past to have relatively large effects (Nile river delta for instance over the millenniums)
Areas heat up = less arable land of the already reduced land.
Not at all clear. Some northern areas that were formerly tundra and taiga may warm up enough to add to the arable land-- Canada and Siberia and Finland, get ready to be breadbaskets of the world! Some areas that were suitable for one type of crop will switch to a different, warmer climate crop. More notably, rainfall patterns may shift, and some farmlands will become deserts.
The net effect is very unclear.
I'm not mixing effects nor off-setting one effect with other effect(s). My focus is on 1 fact at a time. Will there be less arable land from the current arable land? That answer is "yes". I'll repeat what I said here:
There are studies that indicate large swaths of currently highly arable land in the N American continent will become desert along with the Sahara increasing in size.
Those same studies indicate other deserts will likely increase in size as well, especially in the tropical areas
Some areas heat up of the much smaller set of land and become arable.
Right. Except that it's only an assertion that this is "much smaller"
I'll continue my quote:
I'd say the warming of land in the northern America/Europe/Asian continents won't help much in the short run or long runs, since they are currently relatively dry as well. No, I haven't looked at what the climate change predictions are for rainfall in those areas
Without doing calculations it appears that yes, there would be less net arable land as much of what is settled and arable is along coasts with a few exceptions.
Without doing calculations, nothing of the sort is obvious, because you have to do the calculations.
In any case, the big wild card is the changes in rainfall patterns. This is much harder to model than the overall temperature. Overall temperature is easy: it's little more than just thermal accounting. Rainfall patterns-- these are hard.
That is something we agree on. Predicting rainfall for even the next few days is hard, much less 30+ years in the future with rising temperatures. Even that rise is rather difficult to predict. There is one theory I read a while ago that our greenhouse effect will actually result in a brief and sudden ice age. The rationale is that large portions of the continental ice sheets suddenly (within the space of a few years or a decade or two) all hit the ocean and create large disruptive cooling effects, completely screwing up the weather until a new pattern stabilizes. If we could predict the future, we wouldn't have a lottery.
There are studies that indicate large swaths of currently highly arable land in the N American continent will become desert along with the Sahara increasing in size. I'd say the warming of land in the northern America/Europe/Asian continents won't help much in the short run or long runs, since they are currently relatively dry as well. No, I haven't looked at what the climate change predictions are for rainfall in those areas.
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of good arguments to be made for adding to the math curiculum statistics, combinatorics and other areas
FTFY
The only entity ISIS doesn't want to destroy is itself, and that is debatable.
Neither farmers nor farmers wives "worked" in the context of a labor census. You cannot be fired from your farm, for instance. They were self-employed and and self-supporting generally providing for themselves, with a little extra left over for trade. If they were lucky, they had enough to have some luxury. Labor and employment as we discuss it today is working for someone else, and did not apply to the general masses prior to the effects of the industrial revolution kicking up productivity and freeing enough people from subsistence farming to make a difference.
You're operating on a vacuum assumption in your own head without looking at the world around you. You go, "Oh, that doesn't make sense to me, so I'll make up bullshit and claim everything based on solid analysis and understanding is made-up bullshit."
Put up or shut up time: predict the next major recession. Right now. Can't? Hmmm.... So, with that out the way, you've made some other major assertions that many just don't agree with:
No, the cost-of-living hasn't gone down; the standard-of-living has gone up. ... That means, yes, the *buying* *power* income from a single job has increased (median).
I'd say inflation has done a number on the median income and reduced disposable income to lower levels. So I suppose it's a good thing those toys cost less, because there is less to spend on them.
I already demonstrated that we're in a labor force participation rate bubble,
TBBA (Truth by Blatant Assertion) Merely pointing at a graph or mentioning various cherry picked statistics doesn't prove a bubble.
Let's not argue so much over *why* labor force participation suddenly grew. Let's ask another question: Why was it so low in 1970? Well, I can find as far back as 1947 at a glance, and the answer is it's always been that low.
Actually, let's do discuss it, because it's quite relevant. You see, in the late 60s, with women's lib and societal upheavel in the US and the rejection of the June Cleaver role, women actually demanded that they be treated as equals in society. Because of the aforementioned appliances etc, they had more free time and they not only went to work but stayed at work, developing careers as a normal activity. That increased the labor pool, it was not a bubble, but a raising of the available level. Now you can dispute that the pool got bigger or address the drop off since the peak, but you can't say the increase was a bubble as several fundamental shifts in society occurred to drive that effect. That would be like saying an asteroid only caused some minor temporary damage 65 million years ago.
Globalization started in the 19th century--some economists want to take this back further--with the reduction of shipping costs. That whole shipping textiles and spices and liquor around? That's outsource labor, pushing manufacture to cheaper labor markets.
Really? Try the 70s for when textiles really started losing business fast. You're seriously stretching there with ancient trade. That trade was for goods unique to production areas, not a move to replace domestic production with cheaper foreign production. It's a simple test really, was whatever was being brought in made domestically as well? No? Then it wasn't outsourcing.
At the same time, income per household has increased even as labor force participation decreased, which suggests the jobs we're gaining are higher-paying jobs.
You might want to check your numbers as it is obvious that real median income has dropped since the 70s, with the exception of the last report, which still indicates that median income has dropped since 2000. Add to that that actual cost of living has increased....
First, we don't have a lowered median income.
TBBA - Several links from authoritative sources a
Actually, it's not that simple.
This is still an overly simplistic view of economics, which itself is a pseudo science evolved from a bunch of hand-waving and unproven assumptions. If it weren't, there would never be any surprises on Wall St.
What's happening now is that that the overall household budget has shrunken, so originally they were paying $10/yr for clothing, and now they're paying $2/yr, but they're making $80/yr instead of $100/yr. So, the net effect is that their real spending power has shrunken. (numbers chosen for simplicity of understanding, real numbers do follow those representative trends)
So in the vacuum of economics, what you say is true. Reality, however, isn't so kind. The current outsourcing trends are akin to cutting your own throat. You can only bleed wealth for so long, before you're no longer wealthy.
The answer is not that people would work more. We're not going back to an economy where we used a different technique; we're going to an economy where we've cut back working hours by a high-tech technique, but didn't cut back costs.
Where we are going is an economy where productivity keeps increasing compared to labor hours spent. Let's take that to an absurd level: 1 person works full time, and grows all the food necessary for the country. What do the rest of the people do? This isn't actually a hypothetical question as robotics are already in play in agriculture and will only increase in the next decade. As robots get better and are able to build other robots, you see the effect spread. This scenario replaces "outsourcing" with "replacement labor" to remove workers from the pool.
This is well-understood economics. ...my model....
Yep, just reinforces my statement above - economics has yet to become an actual science. We're still in the studying phases because we cannot model it accurately. It's much like trying to model brownian motion, weather, or solar flares, because individual human actions cannot be predicted and do have effects as they aggregate. Everything beyond that is an assumption based on historical activity. The mouse turned right the last 3 times, it'll turn right this time again... oops, left turn.
That is no longer the case, with the total labor force shrinking every year since 2006 [bls.gov]. It's actually worse than that, if you go further back.
We've been in a labor force bubble since 1970. Housewives gave way to working couples and middle-class families living at an extended standard-of-living (two people work, draw more income, and buy more stuff, living like rich people--we've normalized this, so they're just middle-class). We didn't replace those housewives with maids and servants in every household; on the other hand, we *did* get nice dishwashers, washing machines, and other tools to dramatically reduce the domestic working hour load.
You'll note that dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, and those other nice tools all arrived *prior* to the dual income family becoming standard. Why? Because the income from a single job has been degraded since the 70s as more and more of those middle class jobs exited via outsourcing, to be replaced by lower wage jobs, if at all. (something you have yet to discount)
It's the only way it's worked. Initially we shipped labor intensive work like textiles out. Then more expensive jobs that included things like EPA restrictions. As the manufacturing base overseas ram
Trump is a symptom that the current political system is broken. Enough people are upset that they latched onto someone who focuses and represents their anger. It's why his numbers don't plummet when he makes one of his rather common blunders that would sink any of his rivals. Instead, his supporters ratchet up their support. It's almost a mob mentality stoked by invective. What caused this to come about? Well, when is the last time you voted "for" a politician? Maybe the 80s? Ever since, it's been the lesser of two evils, which has devolved to a point now that there are no choices left. This is also why Sanders is in the position he's in, because he's an outsider and pretty much unelectable as president until this presidential election. I personally would like to see a Sanders/Trump matchup in November, because either way, politics would be actually interesting for a change.
In domestic economics, you actually create more local jobs by aggressively outsourcing, so long as your labor balance slides more slowly than your wealth. That is: If 50% of your employment is domestic and you save enough money outsourcing to create 10% more jobs, you have the *same* number of domestic employees if you end with 45.45% of your employment domestic and the rest outsourced. You start with 50 Chinese and 50 American workers, you eliminate 10 American jobs in favor of 10 Chinese jobs, and you get 40 and 60; along the way you find you can sell 10% more stuff, so you employ 10% more workers, and end up with 50 and 60--10 new Chinese jobs overall, more stuff being made for the same amount of money, and the 50 American workers are living a higher standard-of-living because they can buy more stuff since it's all cheaper.
I see you drank the koolaid.
So I take 10 high paying american jobs, outsource them for 50% cost overseas. Optimistically those 10 high paying american jobs become a combination of 10 mid to low-paying jobs. They're still employed! Yay! Because unless you can prove concretely that outsourcing any high paying job results in a new higher paying job being created, what you're doing is lowering the pool. Your own logic states this unequivocally in that products are cheaper because of lowered labor costs. That only worked while we were over-employed. That is no longer the case, with the total labor force shrinking every year since 2006. It's actually worse than that, if you go further back. Then you look at what an individual makes, and that has shrunk if you clip the top couple of percent. Yes, they make so much it skews the entire result set, but take the median 90 or so percent, and you'll see that real earning power has shrunk. The reason this hasn't had the major negative impact you'd assume is because the family unit has gone from 1 to 2 workers supporting the family in many cases, or people are co-habiting more and sharing costs. It's not the rosy picture you're painting for sure.
Obviously, if you start shoveling jobs out to China like crazy without creating new American jobs, this doesn't work. Historically, that's not how it's worked; it's not even how it works today.
It's the only way it's worked. Initially we shipped labor intensive work like textiles out. Then more expensive jobs that included things like EPA restrictions. As the manufacturing base overseas ramped up, it wasn't long before more and more of those higher paying middle class jobs all left, if they could. There were some initial jobs created to build up the infrastructure to support the imports, but once done that number shrank again and now there are fewer total jobs. And lets not forget that the imports don't pay into the federal tax pool, leaving that burden more heavily weighed on the populace, as the production base which used to pay taxes now doesn't.
And then you view Disney's "Return to the Vault!" [Tm] program as a case in point of making things artificially scarce to maintain value over time, or even Wu-Tang's Clan's Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, which value went up because of the copyright exclusivity.
My point was that "yes, you can make lots of money after 5 years."
if it "requires an internet connection" you can be pretty sure it's not what you want, unless you know enough to hack it.
Agreed. This doesn't surprise me one bit. Maybe the name gives it away... you know... that these Things communicate over the Internet?
I would disagree entirely with your premise. In most cases, people would be perfectly happy to have LAN only connected devices. That is how mine are setup, regardless of what they might "want" to do.
I think the founders had it right, 14 years (which would be automatic under Berne now, which is fine) with a 14 year application (fee) for extension. 28 years is a long time, longer than most works will ever remain relevant. And for those that do, isn't the public domain the right place for them?
After 5 years, there is no more money to be made from it. If you cannot recover your investment costs by 5 years, you won't in 50 years.
Disney would disagree with you. Into the vault you go. In 10 years, for the next x0 anniversary, print more money.
Not exactly true. Don't buy the devices that are pure clients of a central server. Everything else works standalone, and generally is already or can be hacked. After all, if you buy it, it is yours. "Violating" the EULA merely means that it is likely you won't be under warranty.
What is this Facebook you speak of?
All true. I personally would probably prefer to not run any systemd distros, and will avoid them for a while. Just far too flaky and troublesome. initd works just fine. Maybe in 5 years systemd will either have settled down and be usable, or a new service will come in to replace it.
hundreds of square miles
Hundreds of acres is nothing compared to millions of acres GAINED.
Do you truly not understand the size of the Earth, more specifically the size of all continental mass in the northern hemisphere?
I do, but do you understand measurements? To make it easy for you: 640 acres per square mile. I merely said hundreds because that's what a quick search revealed as minimum losses over the last millennia or two for 1 specific location that happens to be a very rich arable area surrounded by a lot of substandard agricultural land. The actual losses are much much higher. The sea level changes being discussed for the next 50 years could well match that damage, and note that the NPR story is stating that currently arable land is already suffering salt infusion with those affected farmers having no where to go.
it would be better to have the robots.txt file delivered and then act upon it yourself for those known to be bad actors, like a proxy. Think of the wonderful results you could have search engines display if they ignored your robots.txt. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
You sir are fitting to work as help desk for the rest of your life. In case you didn't notice yet, one size does not fit all. If you can figured that out then you have a fighting chance at becoming a good technology advisor which will open up many doors.
You may have just won a space on my journal page with that sanctimonious quote. It took me 10 minutes to recover enough from laughing just to post this reply.
Since I don't keep up with AAA games in general, I can only comment on those I personally own. I also prefer not to run Steam in general. I am sure I'm not alone. There must be a market for non windows games since so many are being released on OSX/Linux, or are you saying companies are just throwing money away to make that claim?
You clearly didn't consider the facts entirely - any tiny loss made up of seaweed making inroads in river deltas (which you can still grow around BTW, there are a number of plants with high salt tolerance).
You're missing part of the point - hundreds of square miles of arable land were lost when the Mediterranean sea level rose. More is being lost as the levels rise. This is just one very fertile area, true, but it is a main one for roughly 100M people.
But even if it killed everything in 30 miles of a river, the vast increase in aria be land with a longer northern growing season makes up for it by several orders of magnitude.
This is an excellent example of "Truth by Blatant Assertion" (TBBA). For starters, note that vast areas of highly productive arable land in the US, for instance, will likely become desert or arid resulting in significantly less production. Weather patterns further north are currently not exactly pro-agriculture even if things warmed up. The tundra areas especially are relatively dry. It is only supposition that there will be increases of arable land that will offset the known losses that will occur. Even if there were significant increases in the far northern hemisphere, it doesn't help the hundreds of millions (billions?) that don't live in there and will be unlikely to be able to move there.
It's only common sense that more energy into a system means more life. That's what life does best.
Apparently your common sense is broken. See Venus for starters.
The whack-a-mole game of insecurity with MS goes on....
Q: How do you secure a windows system?
A: Install another vendor's OS.
There are other AAA games that are not FPS which suit me fine (not a FPS fan, don't care to see other players hopping around like crickets on crack). How is X-Windows not multi-threaded? Unless you're talking about the bugs in xlib when multiple threads share 1 Display connection, as one example. But you can certainly run XWindows programs with multiple threads. Coding them correctly, however, has always been challenging for any performance type application. As for Linux graphics drivers, there were a few announcements recently that may hold promise. It would certainly be nice if those bore fruit, because those same drivers might be usable on BSD as well.
Logically
Coastal land is lost. How much of the agricultural land of the Earth is coastal? Well, some of it is. But it's not clear that the total effect is large.
Yes, and new coastal land will be created in some areas, meaning more land lost than merely what goes under water. Salt water inflows will penetrate to some distance inland, greatly affected by soil type and geography. In low-lying areas, like river deltas, that has been shown in the past to have relatively large effects (Nile river delta for instance over the millenniums)
Areas heat up = less arable land of the already reduced land.
Not at all clear. Some northern areas that were formerly tundra and taiga may warm up enough to add to the arable land-- Canada and Siberia and Finland, get ready to be breadbaskets of the world! Some areas that were suitable for one type of crop will switch to a different, warmer climate crop. More notably, rainfall patterns may shift, and some farmlands will become deserts.
The net effect is very unclear.
I'm not mixing effects nor off-setting one effect with other effect(s). My focus is on 1 fact at a time. Will there be less arable land from the current arable land? That answer is "yes". I'll repeat what I said here:
There are studies that indicate large swaths of currently highly arable land in the N American continent will become desert along with the Sahara increasing in size.
Those same studies indicate other deserts will likely increase in size as well, especially in the tropical areas
Some areas heat up of the much smaller set of land and become arable.
Right. Except that it's only an assertion that this is "much smaller"
I'll continue my quote:
I'd say the warming of land in the northern America/Europe/Asian continents won't help much in the short run or long runs, since they are currently relatively dry as well. No, I haven't looked at what the climate change predictions are for rainfall in those areas
Without doing calculations it appears that yes, there would be less net arable land as much of what is settled and arable is along coasts with a few exceptions.
Without doing calculations, nothing of the sort is obvious, because you have to do the calculations.
In any case, the big wild card is the changes in rainfall patterns. This is much harder to model than the overall temperature. Overall temperature is easy: it's little more than just thermal accounting. Rainfall patterns-- these are hard.
That is something we agree on. Predicting rainfall for even the next few days is hard, much less 30+ years in the future with rising temperatures. Even that rise is rather difficult to predict. There is one theory I read a while ago that our greenhouse effect will actually result in a brief and sudden ice age. The rationale is that large portions of the continental ice sheets suddenly (within the space of a few years or a decade or two) all hit the ocean and create large disruptive cooling effects, completely screwing up the weather until a new pattern stabilizes. If we could predict the future, we wouldn't have a lottery.
There are studies that indicate large swaths of currently highly arable land in the N American continent will become desert along with the Sahara increasing in size. I'd say the warming of land in the northern America/Europe/Asian continents won't help much in the short run or long runs, since they are currently relatively dry as well. No, I haven't looked at what the climate change predictions are for rainfall in those areas.