You haven't spent much time in Alberta. The entire Provence is carved into a grid of cut-lines and oilfield service roads. Then there's the Tar Sands which hold the dubious promise to become a crater the size of Florida and, as of 2007, is home to the worlds largest dam by volume, the Syncrude Tailings Dam @ 706,320cu yards and growing in order to hold back the voluminous toxic waste produced.
Take the million acres and let the rest return to normal.
Wow.
If they don't want to seem stupid then maybe they should stop saying dumb things like "we are going to destroy the earth". ...Have nothing better to do than quibble with common language usage? Weak. But hey, let's play your game then.
...world government enforced ban on combustion... return to pre-industrial civilization along with a police state... Like to put words in others' mouths much? But hey, looks like you already knew that.
Now you might claim that no one is advocating that... So I guess that makes it OK for you to say some 'stupid' things too then.
As for nuclear, I'm sure you're fine with a plant in every neighborhood. Great, so are you fine with storing nuclear waste in you neighborhood too? I'm sure you would be, but when push comes to shove. You don't have the natural geography required to store this stuff for thousands of years so you're never really in any danger are you?
So let's move on to nuclear in general. Why bother? The global nuclear industry is littered with failed promises, cost over-runs and a dubious viability. Nuclear is the past, despite what the vested interests want us to believe. In North America we already have vast geothermal reserves which could provide all the power we require for, in human terms, ever and it's base-load power to boot. However, a wise and economically sound energy policy should not 'put all it's eggs in one basket.' To that end, Wind and solar have both made great strides; to the point that it has become possible to power the continent with either one of them. Tidal is showing promise, but it's not there yet and fusion is perpetually a decade away...
When we get right down to it, we should keep this principle in mind: We don't inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
With this in mind, however we decide to go, it shouldn't place a burden on the future.
from the article: "The poles are to extend 90 feet into the seafloor, and the units are to be constructed to withstand hurricane-force winds."
When offshore oil derricks semi-regularly have 3 mile long icebergs bounce off them, I think a they can anchor a glorified flagpole to the ocean floor.
As for visibility just think of a model: Tall but thin, turn 'em sideways and they seem to disappear.
It's random. One one side of the snail tank is an encoder that will 'fill' an empty RFID glued to a snail when it passes by (really close I would guess), and on the other side of the tank is a receiver that 'empties' the RFID and sends the message on its way. Judging by the food comment later in the article, the designer may encourage movement between the two points by placing food near both the locations, however, that is speculation on my part. In the end it is totally random with the athleticism of one of the snails being a major factor. The athletic snail, has delivered 10 of 14 successfully transmitted messages and another not-so-athletic one being completely unreliable having failed, thus far, to deliver any messages.
Sorry if I've mistaken your intent here, but what does that prove? You can do the same thing with a sheet of steel or a wooden plank or a slab of concrete...
Hopefully. Fraud is fraud no matter where it originates. With the internet providing the con-artists faster and a wider range of underhanded opportunities, our two countries need to coordinate an efficient attack on this type of behaviour. Hopefully, the police and the courts up here will toss these criminals behind bars where they belong.
Why bother with Nuclear in the short term when we can go Geothermal? That way we skip all the nasty fission byproducts and a proven track record of cost over-runs.
With Wikipedia I find it interesting to read the talk page when there is a contested article. If you're really interested in the subject matter, You can often learn significantly more with two knowledgeable people arguing about that topic.
More CO2 => increased temperatures => more greenery => more CO2 absorption => decreased temperatures? More CO2 => increased temperatures => more greenery => more CO2 absorption => more biomass to decompose => more CO2 => increased temperatures
The trouble with digging up carbon and burning it, is that you're adding it to what is essentially a closed loop cycle. This leads to changes in climate and impacts life all over the planet. The more you alter the environment, the bigger the change in the inhabitants of that environment.
They make a very interesting argument for why we should ban game players from becoming game developers. Unless of course, DNF is released (at some point) and becomes the most insanely awesome game of all time. OTOH, it's refreshing to see a game developer show us what's truly important in this world, namely, playing some other companies game.
I know a guy, he always has to have the latest and greatest... One time I brought him along to purchase a new hard drive because he always seemed to know what was the good stuff. Anyway, I followed his recommendation and I guess what I was buying was superior to what he had at the time (purchased about two months prior) because, as I was completing the transaction, I heard a noise. When I looked around, he was literally vibrating and he shouted: "I'll take two!" Then he proceeded to purchase a matched pair.
Ya, I don't really go to stores anymore. When I need to upgrade, I'm more than willing to be a couple months out of date especially if it keeps a buddy on the right side of the rent. I guess you could call me an enabler, but I'm a cheap bastard at heart.
"oh woe is me, the housing market is collapsing!" no its not. Now's a great time to buy. In fact this is really the sort of situation that benefits people in their mid-late 20s. Real Estate values were inflated before. Now those people can more easily afford to buy houses.
Great plan! Now lets go find a bank who want's to give me, a late 20something, a mortgage.
True dat. Throughout this process Microsoft claimed that this takeover was a core part of it's strategy to compete with Google and by making the offer, they were sending the signal that their attempts compete on their own weren't working. So what does Microsoft tell stockholders now? How will they justify spending money on an area that they have symbolically conceded defeat on?
I'm with you on keeping the GUI simple, however if something become a great 'annoyance' to a significant portion of your users so much so that your product gets forked over it, then a simple check-box buried in an obscure (perhaps install) menu that only a power user is likely to find might just be the ticket! If you really care enough to find it then knock yourself out. It's like Mr. Burns keeping his employees happy by giving them tar-tar sauce!
Good call. Microsoft would have slowly killed Yahoo, not overnight mind you, Yahoo is far too big for that. Most companies try to focus their energy on their 'core competencies'. (Makes sense that you would spend most of your time focusing on what you do best in order to NOT kill your golden goose!) Now what is Microsoft's core competency? Well, they do a ton of things but I guess you would have to look at where they make their money: Windows/Office.
For some reason Microsoft is desperate to compete with Google in 'search.' They failed in their attempt to build their own so they figure that dropping $44B on Yahoo is a good idea. As I understand it, Yahoo's strategy is largely wrapped up in creating original content to attract users. How does any of that fit with Microsoft's core competency? If they pull off this takeover, what is going to be the priority at Microsoft? How are they going to integrate Yahoo with the rest of Microsoft? Will they shut down similar operations or will they start to compete against themselves? For the shareholders, the biggest question should be: Where is the top brass going to focus? How are they going to protect their 'Golden Goose' 'cause they can't really afford another Vista nor do they want to turn a $44B purchase into the next plays-for-sure.
Right-O, over the centuries since they have become domesticated food animals have become so dependent upon humans that they couldn't survive without us. Honestly, sheep are so dumb that when it's lambing season you literally have to spend 5 minutes to god-knows-how-long trying to get the mother sheep to accept her own offspring!
Of course from what I understand of PETA, they would rather have all the animals dead than live under the tyranny of humanity, only to end up on a fork.
Q: What organization kills 90% of the animals it 'shelters'?
So, your contention fails. Not all the planets are warming. Further, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you finger the Sun as the main culprit here, although you didn't explicitly state that. However, solar output hasn't increased since we've begun specifically measuring it in '78. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650
Now to the Ice cores: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11640
If anyone takes the time to read through the above links they will discover that there are many factors that can and have influenced global temperatures in the past. (As the skeptics continually refer) Some of these factors include, Solar luminosity, Cloud formation, particulate in the air, Carbon Dioxide and so on. If there is a big change in any of the factors that control climate (which there has been in the past)then you would expect to see an effect on climate. CO2 records from ice cores DO match up well with the CO2 record but there are cases where they don't. HOWEVER: these deviances are satisfactorily explained by the presence of other factors over-riding the effect of CO2 during a specific geologic era. What's happening today is that we are altering the climate mainly by heavily altering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Must be lonely out there, all alone, pissing into the wind. Especially considering that something like 98% of the worlds scientist who've looked into this accept the science behind CO2 and it's impact on climate, and the simple fact that there has been zero peer-reviewed research that disproves the impact that CO2 can have on climate. All this despite the fact that scientists have been studying CO2 and it's role in the atmosphere for decades. So here's the usual challenge: If you have some kind of evidence that disproves the role CO2 plays in the earth's climate, or have some kind of theory as to how altering the composition of the atmosphere will not result in a change of climate, nows the time to bring it out. If not... off you go!
Sciros, Perhaps the satire was lost on you. The parent was referencing a famous piece of literature by Johnathan Swift entitled: A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick. Check it out on Wikipedia if you wish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
Very nice, very simple. Although in my opinion you ought to do away with the barcode. If a recount is required it should be done manually, (by a neutral 3rd party of course). If you can't trust the machine the first time around, I won't trust it the second... Further, a manual recount should be automatic when the results differ significantly from exit polling.
My rant: We can put a man on the moon. We can create new forms of life one gene at a time. We can alter the chemistry of the seas and atmosphere. We can split the atom. We can convince the big-wigs at Wall Street that packages of Subprime mortgages are a fantastic investment vehicle. So why in name of all that is holy can we not build a machine that can do simple arithmetic?
My problem with most global warming advocates is that they take a single parameter, CO2 production by anthroprogenic sources and turn that into the dominating variable where there are a great many other things to describe that causes the effects. And the problem I have with climate change skeptics is that they try to delay/deny/confuse and otherwise downplay the issue of man-made CO2, (and by extension: real action) by (correctly) pointing to the fact that there are other factors, both natural and anthropogenic, involved in climate change. Unfortunately, this observation is often used as a distraction technique designed to downplay and obfuscate our CO2 problem.
There are a great many uneducated people on both sides of climate change. When folks talk about CO2 as though it's the only factor involved: please remember that while CO2 may not be the biggest factor involved in climate, it's the key driving factor involved in our current anthropogenic climate shift.
Scientists have been studying climate change for decades now and so far no one has been able to discount the role CO2 is playing. If somebody has found a way to entirely displace the role CO2 appears to be playing in climate change then lets hear it! If not, it's high time we get to work so that we don't get left behind economically and technologically!
Slashdot Mirror
You haven't spent much time in Alberta. The entire Provence is carved into a grid of cut-lines and oilfield service roads. Then there's the Tar Sands which hold the dubious promise to become a crater the size of Florida and, as of 2007, is home to the worlds largest dam by volume, the Syncrude Tailings Dam @ 706,320cu yards and growing in order to hold back the voluminous toxic waste produced.
Take the million acres and let the rest return to normal.
...world government enforced ban on combustion... return to pre-industrial civilization along with a police state... Like to put words in others' mouths much? But hey, looks like you already knew that. Now you might claim that no one is advocating that... So I guess that makes it OK for you to say some 'stupid' things too then.As for nuclear, I'm sure you're fine with a plant in every neighborhood. Great, so are you fine with storing nuclear waste in you neighborhood too? I'm sure you would be, but when push comes to shove. You don't have the natural geography required to store this stuff for thousands of years so you're never really in any danger are you?
So let's move on to nuclear in general. Why bother? The global nuclear industry is littered with failed promises, cost over-runs and a dubious viability. Nuclear is the past, despite what the vested interests want us to believe. In North America we already have vast geothermal reserves which could provide all the power we require for, in human terms, ever and it's base-load power to boot. However, a wise and economically sound energy policy should not 'put all it's eggs in one basket.' To that end, Wind and solar have both made great strides; to the point that it has become possible to power the continent with either one of them. Tidal is showing promise, but it's not there yet and fusion is perpetually a decade away...
When we get right down to it, we should keep this principle in mind: We don't inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
With this in mind, however we decide to go, it shouldn't place a burden on the future.
Well, half the population is fine with it.
from the article: "The poles are to extend 90 feet into the seafloor, and the units are to be constructed to withstand hurricane-force winds."
When offshore oil derricks semi-regularly have 3 mile long icebergs bounce off them, I think a they can anchor a glorified flagpole to the ocean floor.
As for visibility just think of a model: Tall but thin, turn 'em sideways and they seem to disappear.
It's random. One one side of the snail tank is an encoder that will 'fill' an empty RFID glued to a snail when it passes by (really close I would guess), and on the other side of the tank is a receiver that 'empties' the RFID and sends the message on its way. Judging by the food comment later in the article, the designer may encourage movement between the two points by placing food near both the locations, however, that is speculation on my part. In the end it is totally random with the athleticism of one of the snails being a major factor. The athletic snail, has delivered 10 of 14 successfully transmitted messages and another not-so-athletic one being completely unreliable having failed, thus far, to deliver any messages.
Sorry if I've mistaken your intent here, but what does that prove? You can do the same thing with a sheet of steel or a wooden plank or a slab of concrete...
Hopefully. Fraud is fraud no matter where it originates. With the internet providing the con-artists faster and a wider range of underhanded opportunities, our two countries need to coordinate an efficient attack on this type of behaviour. Hopefully, the police and the courts up here will toss these criminals behind bars where they belong.
Why bother with Nuclear in the short term when we can go Geothermal? That way we skip all the nasty fission byproducts and a proven track record of cost over-runs.
With Wikipedia I find it interesting to read the talk page when there is a contested article. If you're really interested in the subject matter, You can often learn significantly more with two knowledgeable people arguing about that topic.
...master of none.
The trouble with digging up carbon and burning it, is that you're adding it to what is essentially a closed loop cycle. This leads to changes in climate and impacts life all over the planet. The more you alter the environment, the bigger the change in the inhabitants of that environment.
They make a very interesting argument for why we should ban game players from becoming game developers. Unless of course, DNF is released (at some point) and becomes the most insanely awesome game of all time. OTOH, it's refreshing to see a game developer show us what's truly important in this world, namely, playing some other companies game.
I like your ambition. A joke on /. relating to various types of non-hand related physical activity.
Make friends with an addict.
I know a guy, he always has to have the latest and greatest... One time I brought him along to purchase a new hard drive because he always seemed to know what was the good stuff. Anyway, I followed his recommendation and I guess what I was buying was superior to what he had at the time (purchased about two months prior) because, as I was completing the transaction, I heard a noise. When I looked around, he was literally vibrating and he shouted: "I'll take two!" Then he proceeded to purchase a matched pair.
Ya, I don't really go to stores anymore. When I need to upgrade, I'm more than willing to be a couple months out of date especially if it keeps a buddy on the right side of the rent. I guess you could call me an enabler, but I'm a cheap bastard at heart.
Great plan! Now lets go find a bank who want's to give me, a late 20something, a mortgage.
True dat. Throughout this process Microsoft claimed that this takeover was a core part of it's strategy to compete with Google and by making the offer, they were sending the signal that their attempts compete on their own weren't working. So what does Microsoft tell stockholders now? How will they justify spending money on an area that they have symbolically conceded defeat on?
I'm with you on keeping the GUI simple, however if something become a great 'annoyance' to a significant portion of your users so much so that your product gets forked over it, then a simple check-box buried in an obscure (perhaps install) menu that only a power user is likely to find might just be the ticket! If you really care enough to find it then knock yourself out. It's like Mr. Burns keeping his employees happy by giving them tar-tar sauce!
Good call. Microsoft would have slowly killed Yahoo, not overnight mind you, Yahoo is far too big for that. Most companies try to focus their energy on their 'core competencies'. (Makes sense that you would spend most of your time focusing on what you do best in order to NOT kill your golden goose!) Now what is Microsoft's core competency? Well, they do a ton of things but I guess you would have to look at where they make their money: Windows/Office.
For some reason Microsoft is desperate to compete with Google in 'search.' They failed in their attempt to build their own so they figure that dropping $44B on Yahoo is a good idea. As I understand it, Yahoo's strategy is largely wrapped up in creating original content to attract users. How does any of that fit with Microsoft's core competency? If they pull off this takeover, what is going to be the priority at Microsoft? How are they going to integrate Yahoo with the rest of Microsoft? Will they shut down similar operations or will they start to compete against themselves? For the shareholders, the biggest question should be: Where is the top brass going to focus? How are they going to protect their 'Golden Goose' 'cause they can't really afford another Vista nor do they want to turn a $44B purchase into the next plays-for-sure.
HA HA!
Right-O, over the centuries since they have become domesticated food animals have become so dependent upon humans that they couldn't survive without us. Honestly, sheep are so dumb that when it's lambing season you literally have to spend 5 minutes to god-knows-how-long trying to get the mother sheep to accept her own offspring!
Of course from what I understand of PETA, they would rather have all the animals dead than live under the tyranny of humanity, only to end up on a fork.
Q: What organization kills 90% of the animals it 'shelters'?
A: PETA of course! http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2982
Why should I re-invent the wheel? I'm representing the conventional viewpoint. If you wish to dispute current scientific thought then you must provide evidence. However, in the interests of expediance, here you go.
On the warming of planets:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642
So, your contention fails. Not all the planets are warming. Further, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you finger the Sun as the main culprit here, although you didn't explicitly state that. However, solar output hasn't increased since we've begun specifically measuring it in '78.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650
Now to the Ice cores:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11640
If anyone takes the time to read through the above links they will discover that there are many factors that can and have influenced global temperatures in the past. (As the skeptics continually refer) Some of these factors include, Solar luminosity, Cloud formation, particulate in the air, Carbon Dioxide and so on. If there is a big change in any of the factors that control climate (which there has been in the past)then you would expect to see an effect on climate. CO2 records from ice cores DO match up well with the CO2 record but there are cases where they don't. HOWEVER: these deviances are satisfactorily explained by the presence of other factors over-riding the effect of CO2 during a specific geologic era. What's happening today is that we are altering the climate mainly by heavily altering the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Must be lonely out there, all alone, pissing into the wind. Especially considering that something like 98% of the worlds scientist who've looked into this accept the science behind CO2 and it's impact on climate, and the simple fact that there has been zero peer-reviewed research that disproves the impact that CO2 can have on climate. All this despite the fact that scientists have been studying CO2 and it's role in the atmosphere for decades. So here's the usual challenge: If you have some kind of evidence that disproves the role CO2 plays in the earth's climate, or have some kind of theory as to how altering the composition of the atmosphere will not result in a change of climate, nows the time to bring it out. If not... off you go!
Sciros, Perhaps the satire was lost on you. The parent was referencing a famous piece of literature by Johnathan Swift entitled: A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick. Check it out on Wikipedia if you wish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
Very nice, very simple. Although in my opinion you ought to do away with the barcode. If a recount is required it should be done manually, (by a neutral 3rd party of course). If you can't trust the machine the first time around, I won't trust it the second... Further, a manual recount should be automatic when the results differ significantly from exit polling.
My rant: We can put a man on the moon. We can create new forms of life one gene at a time. We can alter the chemistry of the seas and atmosphere. We can split the atom. We can convince the big-wigs at Wall Street that packages of Subprime mortgages are a fantastic investment vehicle. So why in name of all that is holy can we not build a machine that can do simple arithmetic?
There are a great many uneducated people on both sides of climate change. When folks talk about CO2 as though it's the only factor involved: please remember that while CO2 may not be the biggest factor involved in climate, it's the key driving factor involved in our current anthropogenic climate shift.
Scientists have been studying climate change for decades now and so far no one has been able to discount the role CO2 is playing. If somebody has found a way to entirely displace the role CO2 appears to be playing in climate change then lets hear it! If not, it's high time we get to work so that we don't get left behind economically and technologically!