And practically for free, too. They already have the hardware suppliers and game developers and software catalogue. It'd be a mistake for them not to cover the "microconsole" market when the risk is so low.
You are not the target audience. Sony already has your money. The untold millions who might buy a $100 Android phone or tablet over a Vita or PS4 are the real audience.
I believe that the use of someone's DNA for any purpose in the UK requires informed consent, as with other medical procedures. For example it was recently established that if individual's gametes are used in IVF, that person's consent is needed before implantation can take place, even if they consented to the earlier stages. (The case involved a couple who underwent IVF but later divorced, and the fate of the embryos that were kept in storage after the original procedure. Really tragic for all involved.) In typical medical cases when an individual cannot give informed consent, that responsibility is transferred to their next of kin or other legally appointed representative, so at the minimum you'd need someone to give permission.
It'd be an interesting one to test. Would Ono be able to provide consent on her own, or would his sons also have to provide permission? How far up and down the blood line would permission go?
Eppur si muove! The greenhouse effect is real, and the phenomenology is well-recreated by the model. Gerlich and Tscheuschner seem to be tilting at a popular misconception in the mistaken belief that it is how the actual physical system is supposed to work.
Sadly, I'm with the parent. I think you're seeing early interest in renewables and "low hanging fruit" in terms of siting and demand, but we're going to enter the long, painful crawl towards fully replacing our energy sources before too long. Not that nuclear's anything but a stop-gap, hopefully.
You'd rather everyone died of heatstroke by reinstating the Cretaceous ecosystem, with its body-temperature surface climate? I hope you don't like grains, because you're going to be hard pressed to grow grasses there.
That's not the point, though. He didn't say "nobody has enacted legislation about methane", he was claiming that it was a taboo subject and completely off the table because it didn't involve the right kind of actor.
I sympathise, really, but the decision of how many lost jobs a conservation effort is worth is a local policy one, and it really doesn't weigh on global climate change. If the local authorities didn't consider the possibility that a drought might hit around the same time they were reducing water availability, it sounds like they fucked up. What I can tell you is that if the climate changes significantly, you're going to be running into conflicts between conservation and human livelihood more often as people adjust to a changed water table.
So this has nothing at all to do with CO2, or any of the other stuff you're talking about. It's to do with a completely unrelated wildlife conservation effort that had negative consequences for your homeland.
Given the choice between forcing China and India to take the idea seriously while doing nothing, and forcing China and India to take the idea seriously while getting our own house in order, I'm going to take the high ground. Of course, if it's a net economic loss, that's bad - the whole idea of carbon taxation and trading is to be economically neutral, with the taxes offset by reduced harms from climate change - but that's a point of debate.
I wouldn't be surprised if one day a legislator found out about tides, noted that they were larger than the IPCC sea level rise estimates, and declared global warming a non-issue.
That's not a joke, I genuinely believe that might actually happen.
If you're talking about the breathless headlines about how sulfate aerosols were going to cause global cooling and needed to be cut down, the story had as much to do with climate science as the 2012 apocalypse scare had to do with astronomy.
Of course, you seem like the kind of person who gets their science from the National Enquirer rather than Nature.
Err, no. Even the most cursory examination of the popular or technical literature would have relieved you of this incredible misconception. Methane is an active area of policy, discussion, and research.
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
I mean, really, what is your issue here exactly?
If it's genuinely "why aren't we cutting down on spray from the ocean to reduce H2O evaporation", I can tell you that it'd be like trying to trim an entire football field by carefully walking around the very edge, snipping each blade of grass, then walking away. Shoreline spray is an absolutely miniscule contributor to the water evaporated from the ocean as a whole. (Although it does make aerosols, which precipitate cloud formation, so I dare say it'd be massively counterproductive.)
If it's "why aren't we looking at manipulating the hydrological cycle to offset the forcing caused by CO2", well, that is actually an option. It's just a very difficult one.
If it's "why aren't we reducing the amount of H2O we dump into the atmosphere", I'm afraid that our effect on the water cycle is essentially zero on that scale. Our own H2O usage is not a major contributor to warming.
National travel is not the issue*. Almost all gasoline vehicle use in the United States is local, and that really needs to be cut back. You shouldn't have to drive (as I did) five minutes to the supermarket, and ten minutes to work, because you're in spitting distance but walled off by major roads.
*Anyone who thinks you can have transport in a nation the size of the US without air and long-distance road is fooling themselves.
...because it acts as a major positive feedback mechanism for warming caused by CO2:
heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Next time you want to argue that we have an excessive focus on CO2 as a gas, don't use a NASA study that argues that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a PS3 TV device in Europe called Play TV. It is not very successful but it has a niche as a cheap way of making a PS3 into a PVR.
And practically for free, too. They already have the hardware suppliers and game developers and software catalogue. It'd be a mistake for them not to cover the "microconsole" market when the risk is so low.
They described it as best-of-class at the conference, so I'm sure it's IPS.
You are not the target audience. Sony already has your money. The untold millions who might buy a $100 Android phone or tablet over a Vita or PS4 are the real audience.
I believe that the use of someone's DNA for any purpose in the UK requires informed consent, as with other medical procedures. For example it was recently established that if individual's gametes are used in IVF, that person's consent is needed before implantation can take place, even if they consented to the earlier stages. (The case involved a couple who underwent IVF but later divorced, and the fate of the embryos that were kept in storage after the original procedure. Really tragic for all involved.) In typical medical cases when an individual cannot give informed consent, that responsibility is transferred to their next of kin or other legally appointed representative, so at the minimum you'd need someone to give permission.
It'd be an interesting one to test. Would Ono be able to provide consent on her own, or would his sons also have to provide permission? How far up and down the blood line would permission go?
Eppur si muove! The greenhouse effect is real, and the phenomenology is well-recreated by the model. Gerlich and Tscheuschner seem to be tilting at a popular misconception in the mistaken belief that it is how the actual physical system is supposed to work.
What in the hell does that have to do with the environmental movement?
That's nothing to do with the science, that's a political issue.
Sadly, I'm with the parent. I think you're seeing early interest in renewables and "low hanging fruit" in terms of siting and demand, but we're going to enter the long, painful crawl towards fully replacing our energy sources before too long. Not that nuclear's anything but a stop-gap, hopefully.
You'd rather everyone died of heatstroke by reinstating the Cretaceous ecosystem, with its body-temperature surface climate? I hope you don't like grains, because you're going to be hard pressed to grow grasses there.
That's not the point, though. He didn't say "nobody has enacted legislation about methane", he was claiming that it was a taboo subject and completely off the table because it didn't involve the right kind of actor.
I sympathise, really, but the decision of how many lost jobs a conservation effort is worth is a local policy one, and it really doesn't weigh on global climate change. If the local authorities didn't consider the possibility that a drought might hit around the same time they were reducing water availability, it sounds like they fucked up. What I can tell you is that if the climate changes significantly, you're going to be running into conflicts between conservation and human livelihood more often as people adjust to a changed water table.
So this has nothing at all to do with CO2, or any of the other stuff you're talking about. It's to do with a completely unrelated wildlife conservation effort that had negative consequences for your homeland.
Given the choice between forcing China and India to take the idea seriously while doing nothing, and forcing China and India to take the idea seriously while getting our own house in order, I'm going to take the high ground. Of course, if it's a net economic loss, that's bad - the whole idea of carbon taxation and trading is to be economically neutral, with the taxes offset by reduced harms from climate change - but that's a point of debate.
It's just as well that it's not alarmism, then.
I have genuinely no idea what point you or the blog author are trying to make.
I wouldn't be surprised if one day a legislator found out about tides, noted that they were larger than the IPCC sea level rise estimates, and declared global warming a non-issue.
That's not a joke, I genuinely believe that might actually happen.
Why?
If you're talking about the breathless headlines about how sulfate aerosols were going to cause global cooling and needed to be cut down, the story had as much to do with climate science as the 2012 apocalypse scare had to do with astronomy.
Of course, you seem like the kind of person who gets their science from the National Enquirer rather than Nature.
Err, no. Even the most cursory examination of the popular or technical literature would have relieved you of this incredible misconception. Methane is an active area of policy, discussion, and research.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=methane+global+warming&hl=en&authuser=0
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=methane+global+warming&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
I mean, really, what is your issue here exactly?
If it's genuinely "why aren't we cutting down on spray from the ocean to reduce H2O evaporation", I can tell you that it'd be like trying to trim an entire football field by carefully walking around the very edge, snipping each blade of grass, then walking away. Shoreline spray is an absolutely miniscule contributor to the water evaporated from the ocean as a whole. (Although it does make aerosols, which precipitate cloud formation, so I dare say it'd be massively counterproductive.)
If it's "why aren't we looking at manipulating the hydrological cycle to offset the forcing caused by CO2", well, that is actually an option. It's just a very difficult one.
If it's "why aren't we reducing the amount of H2O we dump into the atmosphere", I'm afraid that our effect on the water cycle is essentially zero on that scale. Our own H2O usage is not a major contributor to warming.
If it's something else, enlighten me.
You're under the impression that the greenhouse effect involves a cool atmosphere transferring heat to a warm Earth?
National travel is not the issue*. Almost all gasoline vehicle use in the United States is local, and that really needs to be cut back. You shouldn't have to drive (as I did) five minutes to the supermarket, and ten minutes to work, because you're in spitting distance but walled off by major roads.
*Anyone who thinks you can have transport in a nation the size of the US without air and long-distance road is fooling themselves.
In my experience, when someone tells me that I'd have to be blind to miss something, it's usually a hallucination.
...because it acts as a major positive feedback mechanism for warming caused by CO2:
heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Next time you want to argue that we have an excessive focus on CO2 as a gas, don't use a NASA study that argues that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas.