If you really needed a citation, there's a recent article on BBC and Wikipedia.
But the historical accounts detail them breaking branches of trees, they would roost so thickly. Piling on each other's backs even. You don't have to be an expert in poop to realize that inches piled up overnight, or even days, will take a very long time to become a beautiful field of flowers again.
Now, as this thread has filled out, I have learned some things, and maybe it's unlikely they would reach those numbers again if they were reintroduced. But they were at those numbers for well over a hundred years, and possibly much longer.
In principle, I am always for the restoration of nature as much as possible.
It's just that I was looking at the little finches and humming birds and squirrels that love my yard when I wrote my previous post, and thinking of how they would all have to die, if a flock of passenger pigeons were to come here.
I've been reading about them with all the articles these past few days.
They would come in their billions. Let's not pretend any of us knows what that means, but an idea, is seeing a flock of thousands that disappear into the distance, and that keeps coming for 3 days. They would cover an area, thoroughly removing every single nut, acorn, bug, worm, seed; leaving inches of dung behind. Anywhere they roosted, thousands to single tree; it would take years for the ground plants to recover from the droppings. From what I've read, everywhere they had been, they left absolutely nothing behind, but broken branches and denuded ground.
Seems like any possible reintroduction is going to be a hard sell.
Yeah, good for you putting up with all these ACs, but the subject matter is worthy.
If I may: When Mr. Bolden says a US court can order a US company to retrieve it's European lock-box contents; that in itself violates no European laws. The company has had legal access to it's own lock-box the whole time, and was always able to retrieve those contents it's convenience.
Now, if those contents of that box were medical records of European patients, or some other items covered under European privacy laws, then those laws may kick in, as far as to whom the contents may be delivered. But I don't believe Mr. Bolden was making that argument, and he was not wrong in stating what a US court can order a US company to do.
"Hey I saw it work a few times that proves it's true so I believe it!"
But he didn't actually say that, did he? He said he'd seen it work a couple of times. Everyone here knows the difference between plural anecdotes and data.
He presented it as an anecdote, and you still feel a duty to run him into the ground?
I'm actually interested in the discussion. What the fuck are we supposed to talk about here then, anyway?
Hm. Let's look at the actual language in question, rather than Ars highly politicized take on it, shall we?
"The standards in science shall be based in core existing disciplines of biology, chemistry, and physics; incorporate grade-level mathematics and be referenced to the mathematics standards; focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes; and prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another."
I see the part about focusing on knowledge rather than scientific processes, but in no way can one read 'forbidding the scientific method to be taught' in there. Not only that, but I could see a good reason for it: they have around 160 hours, total, to teach a year of science. Maybe they want to cram as many facts in as possible, and save the science for it's own sake stuff for those in advanced classes considering a scientific career. If they had a history of wasting precious school time teaching bunsen burner techniques to second graders, then we would all be asking for language like that to be added.
That was off the top of my head. Perhaps the guy does have an agenda, I know nothing about Ohio. But he seems to have done it wrong in that case; that last sentence *is* pretty clear about forbidding intelligent design, or young earth, or anything like that being taught.
Yeah, Jobs and Gates and Woz, or even the giant egghead, Einstein; never got a shred of respect in our society, did they?
It apparently bugs you that the religious still exist, and from that, I bet you can make any point you wish.
From your link:
"The standards in science shall be based in core existing disciplines of biology, chemistry, and physics; incorporate grade-level mathematics and be referenced to the mathematics standards; focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes; and prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another."
OMG. Freakin' Christians just won't get their foot off your neck, will they?
I'm going to guess that's because the muon has a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, whereas the tau has a lifetime so short I can't even type the number, making the muon far easier to study.
I might even be in that group; I pay out the ass in taxes now; I don't want new ones.
Nevertheless, it would still be good law, and if it was worth it, my conservative ass would sign off on it, but political compromises would have to be made.
What if you traded it for some other tax? Pick an big, unpopular one. I've got a good one... The 35% corporate income tax.
Heresy? The Republicans would be jizzing their panties for the chance to combat man-made climate change. Worth it?
This would be where you separate the men from the boys, or rather; the socialists from the true greens. (Greens don't have to be socialists.)
Lobby all you want, you might even get the rate changed, for next year. But this year's rate is this year's rate. We're all paying it, and bitching about it, and gas is $.50 higher or whatever, and heating oil is higher, and coal gets hit the hardest. Everybody pays the same, because the carbon is taxed at the source.
Notice the first thing they have to do, is throw out equality under the law. This government created scheme of carbon markets only applies to the emitters, and polluters, and whoever else they lay down in their narrow and specific hundreds of pages legislation; it doesn't apply to everyone else. If this BS applied to everybody, they wouldn't stand for it, and carry signs if they had to, to get the law changed to something reasonable. Nobody cares about what are seemingly minor regulations that apply only to power companies or big business or whoever. As long as it's not you.
Pass a good, simple law, that applies to every living soul in the land, and it will be effective.
I showed it to 3 people in the office that don't know what WoW is. All 3 said it was really cool, and were glued to it. One, (a 50+ year old man) quizzed me on what kind of computer it runs on, can he get it in the living room, etc.
Well don't blame PvP directly; it's Blizz's reaction, and 'fix' that was the problem.
You spent a month and a half; I spent a year and a half learning how to play that bear. And still got creamed in Wintergrasp for a year. And still had a blast.
The fact is, in good PvP, some classes will be better than others, given the same player skill.
That's because you've exceeded the maximum benefit you're going to get for that income. It would be 'illogical' to tax you for benefits you have no chance of getting.
Assuming that the 'rich' (heh, as if $117K in NY or SF makes one rich) cannot be taxed too much in your world; would it not be more logical to simply raise the income tax, which is arbitrary; rather than Social Security, which is ostensibly tied to benefits?
No, he's not. A coward (or even just the non-brave) would have continued to take the 6 figure salary for an easy job in Hawaii. He gave up everything. Do you really think he's living large in Moscow?
"Putin wouldn't allow it "
He wouldn't like it. But a public offer and Snowden's public acceptance would sure put him on the spot.
"Obama won't willingly take the domestic political hit..."
No, I doubt that he will. He campaigned against this exact thing, and now he is its biggest defender. But he could grow a set, show some leadership, and get the job done, if he wanted to. The only thing stopping him is himself.
And to answer the summary; the positive PR value is enough.
Since you already know this is the kind of guy that will fall on his sword, bullying him would get you little of value, while throwing away the 'useful puppet' advantage.
If we don't like the situation, nothing is stopping Obama from offering him a deal.
"in a fascist country the corporations control the govt."
You made that up, or maybe it was fed to you. That is not what fascism is.
"The socialist party (Democrats) and the fascist party (Republicans)"
Ah, now I see; stumping for your side. Which means there is nothing you can say that is too outrageous or hateful. I guess all is fair in love, war, and politics...
One thing you haven't taken into account is the size of Singapore, and their government. A tiny thing, sandwiched between giant, and far worse neighbors, as pointed out below. They have a sort of community thing going on, and are far closer to their government (just based on numbers), than we could hope to be here in the US.
What seems to be working for them, and apparently it is working well for them, would not work for us here. To compare a large powerful country; 1930s Germany, Russia, China, the US, whoever, to Singapore; is compare apples to,.. well, cinder blocks or something else very unlike apples.
Slashdot Mirror
"First, pigeons don't eat nuts."
Yes, they did. The acorn of the white oak was their main diet. (Acorns are nuts, right?) Anyway;
"Which will help some of the forests that are being denuded by various moth larvae that don't have much in the way of predators..."
That is a really good one. I said it would be a hard sell before; that could be the closer...
If you really needed a citation, there's a recent article on BBC and Wikipedia.
But the historical accounts detail them breaking branches of trees, they would roost so thickly. Piling on each other's backs even. You don't have to be an expert in poop to realize that inches piled up overnight, or even days, will take a very long time to become a beautiful field of flowers again.
Now, as this thread has filled out, I have learned some things, and maybe it's unlikely they would reach those numbers again if they were reintroduced. But they were at those numbers for well over a hundred years, and possibly much longer.
In principle, I am always for the restoration of nature as much as possible.
It's just that I was looking at the little finches and humming birds and squirrels that love my yard when I wrote my previous post, and thinking of how they would all have to die, if a flock of passenger pigeons were to come here.
"If the ecosystems can adjust to their demise, then surely they could equally well adjust to their return?"
That ecosystem you speak of... Um; that's us.
Just sayin.
I've been reading about them with all the articles these past few days.
They would come in their billions. Let's not pretend any of us knows what that means, but an idea, is seeing a flock of thousands that disappear into the distance, and that keeps coming for 3 days. They would cover an area, thoroughly removing every single nut, acorn, bug, worm, seed; leaving inches of dung behind. Anywhere they roosted, thousands to single tree; it would take years for the ground plants to recover from the droppings. From what I've read, everywhere they had been, they left absolutely nothing behind, but broken branches and denuded ground.
Seems like any possible reintroduction is going to be a hard sell.
Yeah, good for you putting up with all these ACs, but the subject matter is worthy.
If I may: When Mr. Bolden says a US court can order a US company to retrieve it's European lock-box contents; that in itself violates no European laws. The company has had legal access to it's own lock-box the whole time, and was always able to retrieve those contents it's convenience.
Now, if those contents of that box were medical records of European patients, or some other items covered under European privacy laws, then those laws may kick in, as far as to whom the contents may be delivered. But I don't believe Mr. Bolden was making that argument, and he was not wrong in stating what a US court can order a US company to do.
It's not socialism. Unless you expand the definition of socialism all the way down to include two people talking...
"Hey I saw it work a few times that proves it's true so I believe it!"
But he didn't actually say that, did he? He said he'd seen it work a couple of times. Everyone here knows the difference between plural anecdotes and data.
He presented it as an anecdote, and you still feel a duty to run him into the ground?
I'm actually interested in the discussion. What the fuck are we supposed to talk about here then, anyway?
"They ousted a lawfully elected president"
Ousted? He abandoned his post and fled.
Yep.
I think it was Montana that once tried to refuse the federal money over the speed limit (not many here have driven a Montana highway at 55).
I don't think they can even refuse the money..
Hm. Let's look at the actual language in question, rather than Ars highly politicized take on it, shall we?
"The standards in science shall be based in core existing disciplines of biology, chemistry, and physics; incorporate grade-level mathematics and be referenced to the mathematics standards; focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes; and prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another."
I see the part about focusing on knowledge rather than scientific processes, but in no way can one read 'forbidding the scientific method to be taught' in there. Not only that, but I could see a good reason for it: they have around 160 hours, total, to teach a year of science. Maybe they want to cram as many facts in as possible, and save the science for it's own sake stuff for those in advanced classes considering a scientific career. If they had a history of wasting precious school time teaching bunsen burner techniques to second graders, then we would all be asking for language like that to be added.
That was off the top of my head. Perhaps the guy does have an agenda, I know nothing about Ohio. But he seems to have done it wrong in that case; that last sentence *is* pretty clear about forbidding intelligent design, or young earth, or anything like that being taught.
Yeah, Jobs and Gates and Woz, or even the giant egghead, Einstein; never got a shred of respect in our society, did they?
It apparently bugs you that the religious still exist, and from that, I bet you can make any point you wish.
From your link:
"The standards in science shall be based in core existing disciplines of biology, chemistry, and physics; incorporate grade-level mathematics and be referenced to the mathematics standards; focus on academic and scientific knowledge rather than scientific processes; and prohibit political or religious interpretation of scientific facts in favor of another."
OMG. Freakin' Christians just won't get their foot off your neck, will they?
Yeah, they did that whole LHC thing without us.
In fact, probably in spite of us...
As long as it's 'them' and 'us', right?
I'm going to guess that's because the muon has a lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, whereas the tau has a lifetime so short I can't even type the number, making the muon far easier to study.
the term you're looking for is 'white guilt'.
They might, as they might here in the States.
I might even be in that group; I pay out the ass in taxes now; I don't want new ones.
Nevertheless, it would still be good law, and if it was worth it, my conservative ass would sign off on it, but political compromises would have to be made.
What if you traded it for some other tax? Pick an big, unpopular one. I've got a good one... The 35% corporate income tax.
Heresy? The Republicans would be jizzing their panties for the chance to combat man-made climate change. Worth it?
This would be where you separate the men from the boys, or rather; the socialists from the true greens. (Greens don't have to be socialists.)
The answer to that is a simple flat carbon tax.
Lobby all you want, you might even get the rate changed, for next year. But this year's rate is this year's rate. We're all paying it, and bitching about it, and gas is $.50 higher or whatever, and heating oil is higher, and coal gets hit the hardest. Everybody pays the same, because the carbon is taxed at the source.
Notice the first thing they have to do, is throw out equality under the law. This government created scheme of carbon markets only applies to the emitters, and polluters, and whoever else they lay down in their narrow and specific hundreds of pages legislation; it doesn't apply to everyone else. If this BS applied to everybody, they wouldn't stand for it, and carry signs if they had to, to get the law changed to something reasonable. Nobody cares about what are seemingly minor regulations that apply only to power companies or big business or whoever. As long as it's not you.
Pass a good, simple law, that applies to every living soul in the land, and it will be effective.
It's funnier than that.
I showed it to 3 people in the office that don't know what WoW is. All 3 said it was really cool, and were glued to it. One, (a 50+ year old man) quizzed me on what kind of computer it runs on, can he get it in the living room, etc.
You just wanted more, man. It's a decent trailer.
Well don't blame PvP directly; it's Blizz's reaction, and 'fix' that was the problem.
You spent a month and a half; I spent a year and a half learning how to play that bear. And still got creamed in Wintergrasp for a year. And still had a blast.
The fact is, in good PvP, some classes will be better than others, given the same player skill.
That was fine. Tehy 'fixed' what wasn't broken.
That's because you've exceeded the maximum benefit you're going to get for that income. It would be 'illogical' to tax you for benefits you have no chance of getting.
Assuming that the 'rich' (heh, as if $117K in NY or SF makes one rich) cannot be taxed too much in your world; would it not be more logical to simply raise the income tax, which is arbitrary; rather than Social Security, which is ostensibly tied to benefits?
"It's one thing to be poor, it's another to have to survive day to day worrying about food, shelter, health care, etc."
No, that's not another thing. That's exactly what 'being poor' means.
I don't think you've ever been poor, or you would know this.
That makes no sense.
"Snowden won't because he is a coward "
No, he's not. A coward (or even just the non-brave) would have continued to take the 6 figure salary for an easy job in Hawaii. He gave up everything. Do you really think he's living large in Moscow?
"Putin wouldn't allow it "
He wouldn't like it. But a public offer and Snowden's public acceptance would sure put him on the spot.
"Obama won't willingly take the domestic political hit ..."
No, I doubt that he will. He campaigned against this exact thing, and now he is its biggest defender. But he could grow a set, show some leadership, and get the job done, if he wanted to. The only thing stopping him is himself.
Yep.
And to answer the summary; the positive PR value is enough.
Since you already know this is the kind of guy that will fall on his sword, bullying him would get you little of value, while throwing away the 'useful puppet' advantage.
If we don't like the situation, nothing is stopping Obama from offering him a deal.
"in a fascist country the corporations control the govt."
You made that up, or maybe it was fed to you. That is not what fascism is.
"The socialist party (Democrats) and the fascist party (Republicans)"
Ah, now I see; stumping for your side. Which means there is nothing you can say that is too outrageous or hateful. I guess all is fair in love, war, and politics...
Carry on then.
One thing you haven't taken into account is the size of Singapore, and their government. A tiny thing, sandwiched between giant, and far worse neighbors, as pointed out below. They have a sort of community thing going on, and are far closer to their government (just based on numbers), than we could hope to be here in the US.
What seems to be working for them, and apparently it is working well for them, would not work for us here. To compare a large powerful country; 1930s Germany, Russia, China, the US, whoever, to Singapore; is compare apples to, .. well, cinder blocks or something else very unlike apples.