The whole idea was to achieve higher throughput to make more money in the same amount of time. The higher throughput would enable you to support more people which is essentially the driver behind growth, and now you have to continue to support these people with your hands work. Oh, what did I just say, not with your hands work but with your energy slave's hands work. Good luck with that.
Oh crap, well lets drone bomb on then. Surprisingly no one gave up their WMDs, ok apart from South Africa maybe. Everybody else has enough infrastructure the destruction of which would kill at least half of the dependents. The ideal self deterrence I would call this, even without nuclear power plants, thanks to population overshoot, refineries and the green revolution will do the rest.
I have been buying always half the sensible size to limit the amount of holiday pictures I would take and never look at again. You mean I could just have stayed with sensible size and also gotten less?
Seeing how you work in a chemistry lab, trying to die of a heart attack instead of cancer seems to be the better way out. Maybe you shouldn't do anything other than maybe walking to the coffee machine occasionally.
Some people in my family suffer from cancer and they had a mining (Wismut AG) or chemistry background. While you can survive cancer for a while and the people around you have enough time to say goodbye, you might not have to fight for that long when dieing from a heart attack.
Oh my, I remember visiting some nature reserve around Canberra that got devastated in a firestorm 4 years before I went there. That sad lady behind the counter of the still empty but newly rebuilt nature reserve visitor centre showed me some book about the cleanup operation, just grisly all those burnt animals. She was almost in tears about it.
The deep space tracking station nearby was still Ok though, Mt. Stromlo observatory not so.
You know that this isn't funny at all, especially since this can happen way more often now in continental locations due to global warming.
So it states that some BDSM people believe in this safe sane consentual and sober mantra, instead of just SSC, and the speaker in the transcript doesn't like the sober aspect at all.
On the whole I would never expect people with the maturity of freshmen to read the above website and follow SSCS on top of it even. The BDSM scene just has some more rigorous standards I guess because of the greater dangers involved. I heard once that people should attend a course or have some other kind of guidance, i.e. if they want to engage in anything bondage related to prevent nerve damage - who would have thought.
I never tried sex and alcohol, but I'm an introverted geek. Also I'm surprised about what passes off as majority culture and what exists at the fringe, in terms of mutual respect.
The predators would probably already exist, the tree might be more sensitive to any of them because of its newly developed steakiness, which might divert energy normally used for defending it.
My ultimate worry was more about the annual nomadic future we might be forcing plants into due to climate change though.
I'm still dreaming of a steak tree - doesn't have to move, grows on sunlight, doesn't need the highly interdependent energy intensive support infrastructure of industrial society, tastes delicious.
The downside would be that trees normally take a while until they can procreate, delaying breeding attempts. The other thing might be that the global greenhouse pickle we got ourselves into would rather favour movable trees, much like the ones seen in Lord of the Rings, due to the rapidity of the climate changes and weather extremes persisting for longer durations. Maybe cows with chlorophyll would be a better idea. Oh no, wait - cows move around to harvest stored energy from the grass, their own surface would never be enough at the puny photosynthesis efficiencies! They might get maybe a 1-2W assuming 100W average insolation.
Well maybe I could settle for beans with beef taste and some additional proteins.
If you listen to people that take Methane feedback, and the carbon release from Peat and drought damaged forests seriously, then you will occasionally hear that we have to reduce carbon emissions by 80%. Given the large fossil fuel contributions to our energy budget of around 80%, we would have 36% of our energy budget left. The question is how many deaths such a reduction would cause now vs how many deaths global warming would cause in the future.
There are a number of reasons why people will not do anything and it doesn't really matter whether politicians know better or what not. You could name hyperbolic discounting but I'm sure you can find other reasons too. If you put yourself into the position of a politician you may actually have to wonder whether you are good if you save some jobs at the cost of increased carbon emissions and more deaths later or whether you are good if you probably save mankind's future at the cost of some 10 million peoples lives now.
That saving mankind's future thing may have gone out of the window already, but the above exercise is interesting nonetheless. It appears to me as if at some point you will only be able to make 'bad' decisions.
Actually, I'm wondering, there are a large number of resource issues on the plate with an exponentially growing population. At some point we will hit the wall of the petri dish (somebody should write a song about this, preferably involving a nice 'ding' sound) and then we can die off quickly due to wars (possibly even nuclear, depending on the desperation) or slowly due to starvation and disease. It will never be that clean cut, but would it be easier to quickly reduce the population so the situation can be kept under control or just let things happen over a 20 year period as some suggest the normal decline could look like?
This would be awesome! Also we might be able to make something like soy sauce from the beans, caffeinated soy sauce. Hmm, caffeinated soy sauce on blowfish sushi, that is also GMO'ed to produce caffeine. Hihi, hyper fishies!
Just let me ask you a simple question, if you compare two equally wide bands around our globe one higher, one lower in latitude, which covers the larger area, and which receives more sunlight per square-meter (alright square foot if you like)?
It is too late anyway, feel free to remain ignorant. Personally I'm getting some popcorn watching the world hit the wall of the Petri dish - Bing!
There is something good about being able to appreciate what is happening though, it is almost like performing crash tests and betting successfully on whether your model was better than the next guys. The downside is that you are in the car.
I didn't read the article but, I think it is possible that certain plants couldn't produce a good harvest when grown at higher latitudes. No matter what the temperatures are higher north under global warming conditions, you still won't have enough sunlight.
YES! Its like Amdahls law never happened, ok it's only six cores but hey! Then there are those bloody algorithms that have to be parallelized. Finally, there are higher costs associated with it because there are still too many developers out there who haven't got a clue about parallel programming.
There are certain IBM chips out there though that actually reach 4.7GHz. Not all hope is lost.
I never intended my statement to be taken seriously, so I didn't think about statistical accuracy that much. But who knows, maybe the US suffers from sunny optimism.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole idea was to achieve higher throughput to make more money in the same amount of time. The higher throughput would enable you to support more people which is essentially the driver behind growth, and now you have to continue to support these people with your hands work. Oh, what did I just say, not with your hands work but with your energy slave's hands work. Good luck with that.
Oh crap, well lets drone bomb on then. Surprisingly no one gave up their WMDs, ok apart from South Africa maybe. Everybody else has enough infrastructure the destruction of which would kill at least half of the dependents. The ideal self deterrence I would call this, even without nuclear power plants, thanks to population overshoot, refineries and the green revolution will do the rest.
I have been buying always half the sensible size to limit the amount of holiday pictures I would take and never look at again. You mean I could just have stayed with sensible size and also gotten less?
Quick, he is still alive, we can still make him say it.
Precisely, and the Onion is America's finest news source.
Let me tell you, we are like frigging Canadians over here, plus the so not continental whether of lets say Quebec.
Man, 'drone bombing' is the new meme, there is already 'drone zone' but done bombing comes right after WMD.
The difference between the two is as if we end up in the microwave, or we end up as slow roast simmering for some hours.
This is good information, thanks much. I was hoping I could tickle someone into telling me more than the linked article.
Seeing how you work in a chemistry lab, trying to die of a heart attack instead of cancer seems to be the better way out. Maybe you shouldn't do anything other than maybe walking to the coffee machine occasionally.
Some people in my family suffer from cancer and they had a mining (Wismut AG) or chemistry background. While you can survive cancer for a while and the people around you have enough time to say goodbye, you might not have to fight for that long when dieing from a heart attack.
I rather like paying for my games at valve, that is more honest.
Oh my, I remember visiting some nature reserve around Canberra that got devastated in a firestorm 4 years before I went there. That sad lady behind the counter of the still empty but newly rebuilt nature reserve visitor centre showed me some book about the cleanup operation, just grisly all those burnt animals. She was almost in tears about it.
The deep space tracking station nearby was still Ok though, Mt. Stromlo observatory not so.
You know that this isn't funny at all, especially since this can happen way more often now in continental locations due to global warming.
"Alcohol is considered fair play. ...
People just don't see this as wrong. I don't know why. "
Some while ago I read some discussion on the topic:
http://www.sexuality.org/latrans.html
So it states that some BDSM people believe in this safe sane consentual and sober mantra, instead of just SSC, and the speaker in the transcript doesn't like the sober aspect at all.
On the whole I would never expect people with the maturity of freshmen to read the above website and follow SSCS on top of it even. The BDSM scene just has some more rigorous standards I guess because of the greater dangers involved. I heard once that people should attend a course or have some other kind of guidance, i.e. if they want to engage in anything bondage related to prevent nerve damage - who would have thought.
I never tried sex and alcohol, but I'm an introverted geek. Also I'm surprised about what passes off as majority culture and what exists at the fringe, in terms of mutual respect.
The predators would probably already exist, the tree might be more sensitive to any of them because of its newly developed steakiness, which might divert energy normally used for defending it.
My ultimate worry was more about the annual nomadic future we might be forcing plants into due to climate change though.
I'm still dreaming of a steak tree - doesn't have to move, grows on sunlight, doesn't need the highly interdependent energy intensive support infrastructure of industrial society, tastes delicious.
The downside would be that trees normally take a while until they can procreate, delaying breeding attempts. The other thing might be that the global greenhouse pickle we got ourselves into would rather favour movable trees, much like the ones seen in Lord of the Rings, due to the rapidity of the climate changes and weather extremes persisting for longer durations. Maybe cows with chlorophyll would be a better idea. Oh no, wait - cows move around to harvest stored energy from the grass, their own surface would never be enough at the puny photosynthesis efficiencies! They might get maybe a 1-2W assuming 100W average insolation.
Well maybe I could settle for beans with beef taste and some additional proteins.
If you listen to people that take Methane feedback, and the carbon release from Peat and drought damaged forests seriously, then you will occasionally hear that we have to reduce carbon emissions by 80%. Given the large fossil fuel contributions to our energy budget of around 80%, we would have 36% of our energy budget left. The question is how many deaths such a reduction would cause now vs how many deaths global warming would cause in the future.
There are a number of reasons why people will not do anything and it doesn't really matter whether politicians know better or what not. You could name hyperbolic discounting but I'm sure you can find other reasons too. If you put yourself into the position of a politician you may actually have to wonder whether you are good if you save some jobs at the cost of increased carbon emissions and more deaths later or whether you are good if you probably save mankind's future at the cost of some 10 million peoples lives now.
That saving mankind's future thing may have gone out of the window already, but the above exercise is interesting nonetheless. It appears to me as if at some point you will only be able to make 'bad' decisions.
Actually, I'm wondering, there are a large number of resource issues on the plate with an exponentially growing population. At some point we will hit the wall of the petri dish (somebody should write a song about this, preferably involving a nice 'ding' sound) and then we can die off quickly due to wars (possibly even nuclear, depending on the desperation) or slowly due to starvation and disease. It will never be that clean cut, but would it be easier to quickly reduce the population so the situation can be kept under control or just let things happen over a 20 year period as some suggest the normal decline could look like?
This would be awesome! Also we might be able to make something like soy sauce from the beans, caffeinated soy sauce. Hmm, caffeinated soy sauce on blowfish sushi, that is also GMO'ed to produce caffeine. Hihi, hyper fishies!
Just let me ask you a simple question, if you compare two equally wide bands around our globe one higher, one lower in latitude, which covers the larger area, and which receives more sunlight per square-meter (alright square foot if you like)?
It is too late anyway, feel free to remain ignorant. Personally I'm getting some popcorn watching the world hit the wall of the Petri dish - Bing!
There is something good about being able to appreciate what is happening though, it is almost like performing crash tests and betting successfully on whether your model was better than the next guys. The downside is that you are in the car.
I didn't read the article but, I think it is possible that certain plants couldn't produce a good harvest when grown at higher latitudes. No matter what the temperatures are higher north under global warming conditions, you still won't have enough sunlight.
>Try Ilex vomitoria instead, American coffee was never that great anyway.
Right, let me lend my comment more Kharma.
YES! Its like Amdahls law never happened, ok it's only six cores but hey! Then there are those bloody algorithms that have to be parallelized.
Finally, there are higher costs associated with it because there are still too many developers out there who haven't got a clue about parallel programming.
There are certain IBM chips out there though that actually reach 4.7GHz. Not all hope is lost.
Seeing all the other people leaving, I'm wondering whether he might have thought that personal reasons aren't cutting it anymore.
I never intended my statement to be taken seriously, so I didn't think about statistical accuracy that much. But who knows, maybe the US suffers from sunny optimism.