Perhaps when you make this argument you should consider all the consumers of carbon dioxide before you declare how we are affecting the atmosphere with CO2.
The biomass of plants on land and in the sea consumes immense amounts of C02 every day. If you give them more CO2, they grow faster and bigger. Their consumption is elastic. Look in a hydroponic or green house catalog and you'll find many CO2 generators and gas monitoring systems available to improve plant growth.
This is not the only place that CO2 disappears into.
Let's not parrot the conclusions of a consensus of 1,000s of scientists when science doesn't work that way. Science is more a gunfighter paradigm where the guy with the best theories and facts to prove the theories rules the streets. In fact, being scientist usually means selecting a very narrow aspect of all nature to study. This means that few of the 1,000s of scientists actually can speak on the basis of their personal experience and knowledge.
Consensus is a political approach to decision-making not a scientific one. Global warming smells more like a political theory than a scientific one.
Quote "they charge money for a "service" that it costs them next to nothing to render"
Economic nonsense! If the telco spent so little on delivering service, they would be hugely profitable and we would hear media comparisons between them and other profit monsters like the beloved Apple Computer Co.
You can't look at the marginal cost of a single element of providing a service and paint the telco as a "brutal capitalist".
It's like politicians condemning Oil Company profits when they are making only a 10% profit. The fact that the absolute numbers of oil company profits are very large only tells you that the business itself is very large.
My own small company also had its voicemail hacked. AT&T detected the abnormal call pattern when they weren't even our carrier of choice.
They contacted us within a couple of days of its start. It wasn't a lot calls each day. After we figure out how to shutdown the hack, they started an investigation process. They seemed to go on forever and wasn't anything they could brag about. But eventually they canceled all the charges.
Now is someone going to complain about the telcos damaging our privacy because of their call pattern surveillance.
I tire of complaints about telcos when they do an amazing job every day.
I work with the telecommunications industry. Most of them would be happier not releasing data or supporting eavesdropping. They've got enough work without chasing after stuff for government types or dealing with litigious types looking to attach their lawsuits to their capital funds and suck money out.
If they need an amnesty, it's because they did what they thought was right for our country and then we changed our minds about what was right.
If you're unhappy with the NSA, DOJ or the President, take it to them. The carriers are just trying to get along with everyone else.
If you've got a beef with AT&T, etc., then address that problem directly.
When the research regarding the risks of buckyballs and other nanoparticles came out, I sent a letter to New Scientist where it was announced criticising them for "bad science". Buckyballs were specifically accused of hurting test subjects.
The testing may be valid, but leaves the wrong impression. Buckyballs are easily made by burning benzene and collecting them from the soot. Benzene is burned when we burn wood, coal, and gasoline. We've been burning these materials by the millions of tons for hundreds of years. Consequently, humans have been exposed and "harmed" by them over the same period.
This doesn't mean that we can't be harmed by new chemical compounds that are made through nanotechnology. It does mean that the threat is not new. The fact that we think of ourselves as able to control them doesn't mean that they are a significant danger.
The reports are bad science because they measure a boa constrictor along its length and tell us that is 16 foot in size without telling us it is only 6 inches tall.
Research is needed for the use of new chemicals, but the fact that we construct the chemicals with a new process doesn't make them more dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps when you make this argument you should consider all the consumers of carbon dioxide before you declare how we are affecting the atmosphere with CO2.
The biomass of plants on land and in the sea consumes immense amounts of C02 every day. If you give them more CO2, they grow faster and bigger. Their consumption is elastic. Look in a hydroponic or green house catalog and you'll find many CO2 generators and gas monitoring systems available to improve plant growth.
This is not the only place that CO2 disappears into.
Let's not parrot the conclusions of a consensus of 1,000s of scientists when science doesn't work that way. Science is more a gunfighter paradigm where the guy with the best theories and facts to prove the theories rules the streets. In fact, being scientist usually means selecting a very narrow aspect of all nature to study. This means that few of the 1,000s of scientists actually can speak on the basis of their personal experience and knowledge.
Consensus is a political approach to decision-making not a scientific one. Global warming smells more like a political theory than a scientific one.
Quote "they charge money for a "service" that it costs them next to nothing to render" Economic nonsense! If the telco spent so little on delivering service, they would be hugely profitable and we would hear media comparisons between them and other profit monsters like the beloved Apple Computer Co. You can't look at the marginal cost of a single element of providing a service and paint the telco as a "brutal capitalist". It's like politicians condemning Oil Company profits when they are making only a 10% profit. The fact that the absolute numbers of oil company profits are very large only tells you that the business itself is very large.
My own small company also had its voicemail hacked. AT&T detected the abnormal call pattern when they weren't even our carrier of choice. They contacted us within a couple of days of its start. It wasn't a lot calls each day. After we figure out how to shutdown the hack, they started an investigation process. They seemed to go on forever and wasn't anything they could brag about. But eventually they canceled all the charges. Now is someone going to complain about the telcos damaging our privacy because of their call pattern surveillance. I tire of complaints about telcos when they do an amazing job every day.
I work with the telecommunications industry. Most of them would be happier not releasing data or supporting eavesdropping. They've got enough work without chasing after stuff for government types or dealing with litigious types looking to attach their lawsuits to their capital funds and suck money out. If they need an amnesty, it's because they did what they thought was right for our country and then we changed our minds about what was right. If you're unhappy with the NSA, DOJ or the President, take it to them. The carriers are just trying to get along with everyone else. If you've got a beef with AT&T, etc., then address that problem directly.
When the research regarding the risks of buckyballs and other nanoparticles came out, I sent a letter to New Scientist where it was announced criticising them for "bad science". Buckyballs were specifically accused of hurting test subjects.
The testing may be valid, but leaves the wrong impression. Buckyballs are easily made by burning benzene and collecting them from the soot. Benzene is burned when we burn wood, coal, and gasoline. We've been burning these materials by the millions of tons for hundreds of years. Consequently, humans have been exposed and "harmed" by them over the same period.
This doesn't mean that we can't be harmed by new chemical compounds that are made through nanotechnology. It does mean that the threat is not new. The fact that we think of ourselves as able to control them doesn't mean that they are a significant danger.
The reports are bad science because they measure a boa constrictor along its length and tell us that is 16 foot in size without telling us it is only 6 inches tall.
Research is needed for the use of new chemicals, but the fact that we construct the chemicals with a new process doesn't make them more dangerous.