Atlantic Salmon were observed to be reduced in average weight solely due to fishing pressure. Older, larger fish were being netted more often, and so the population decreased in size.
And Salmo Salar would be a good example of multinational fishing virtually destroying a wild population. North American Haddock coming in as a example of both overfishing to dangerously low population levels, and a concerted management effort resulting in a stabilized population. We used to joke about how the Gloucester fishermen would one day argue over who caught the last Haddock. Thankfully, it stayed a joke.
You're not just delusional, you're lying. the current Islamic state of Iran was born with the overthrow of the Shah, and one of their first acts was to take hostages.
Their relationship with Iraq was not always peaceful either.
And then you ignore their sponsorship of terrorism worldwide.
Only the current Administration's diminishing support of Israel is emboldening Iran's threats against Israel. Iran's theocracy is more inclined to destroy Israel than not. If Iran is indeed trending towards the irrational use of force in pursuit of their religious goals, then an attack on Israel is consistent with that. The only question is what the Iranian leadership would do in preparation. Would they go into hiding and sacrifice the capital and military sites, or would they martyr themselves?
Either way, they are credible threat to Israel.
And it appears the Saudis have some concern that Iran is a threat to them.
But until we change administrations we are unable to have any useful role in that region.
I can and do. Making things 'more difficult' for criminals is not the same as making things 'impossible'. Restricting high value currency inconvenienced drug dealers. Did it slow them down? Really?
OTOH, this certainly impacted law-abiding citizens, with no impact on the drug trade.
I know plenty of people that commute into Manhattan to work. They get a lot of work done on the train in and out, so much so that some get paid to commute.
I'm thinking I should mount a hotspot in my car to solve the streaming problem and just do it for $10/month or so.
Uber clearly should be looking at self-driving cars as the solution to their most pressing problem - drivers.
And urban areas should see self-driving cars as a huge advantage, increasing the effective capacity of highways.Now we need electric only cars, rafting up, sharing power, so those longer commutes become simpler and cheaper, less polluting. this is a technology problem waiting to be solved and it will. Too late for me to patent that.
Today, 'limited war' is either you crushing your enemy(ies) quickly, 'limiting' the casualties, or low-grade conflicts that linger.
The first Iraq War was 'limited', in that it accomplished the stated goals and pretty much ended. The second one was 'limited' in that it was less than a full-on, decisive, maximum effort conflict. It could have been, but the collateral damage would have been even more terrible.
The Syrian conflict is not 'limited', save by the capabilities of the combatants. And that's not 'limited' in the way I define it.
"Worse yet, it encourages other countries to consider 'usable' nuclear weapons of their own."
That is already happening.North Korea may not be so ready to use theirs, but if you assign the same reluctance to Iran, you are not listening to them.
I've considered the theory that the primary deterrence to a first-strike nuclear attack by developed (and even some 'developing' countries) is their substantial industrial, social, cultural, and economic investments. They have much to lose, more than to gain from the exchange of nuclear weaponry. So they engage in brinksmanship, but ultimately have insufficient motivators to actually let loose. India and Pakistan I think prove this, and North Korea certainly does so far.
Does Iran have sufficient investments to restrain their potential use of nuclear weapons, if they do in fact acquire them? It's a conventional track for them to develop the technology, acquire the material, even develop delivery options, but the real question is, are they sufficiently restrained to not use them in plausible scenarios?
Good question. The answer, as we know in our hearts, is to not play that game. The NNPT has failed. We need to establish a new non-proliferation regime, or struggle with a new paradigm of too many players in a very small game, with very limited options.
"you are unavoidably and intentionally targeting non-combatants and infrastructure when you make the decision to use one."
Hence both the MAD protocol and the palpable reluctance to use 'conventional' nuclear weapons.
"Yes this remains true for "tactical nukes" too."
Um, if the yield is small enough, the fallout/residual radioactivity are the only detriments, and if you're targeting underground facilities, these may actually be tolerable, relative to the threat of not using them.
Put simply, nukes that are small enough and precise enough are merely really powerful bombs, and only inspire a slightly irrational response such as "ZOMG NUKES!", so are probably a last-resort option for certain tactical targets. Now, properly define 'tactical' in this context, and you can find hypotheticals that fit the bill.
Slashdot Mirror
"Microsoft has been developing Windows for Submarines"
Deployed for a decade or more. We know it as Windows XP.
Because when I read " instantly, globally, and without a centralized third-party "
I think of the blockchain as the centralized third-party.
It's just not so physically defined as a nice clean data center some entity built, managed, and charges fees for.
Atlantic Salmon were observed to be reduced in average weight solely due to fishing pressure. Older, larger fish were being netted more often, and so the population decreased in size.
And Salmo Salar would be a good example of multinational fishing virtually destroying a wild population. North American Haddock coming in as a example of both overfishing to dangerously low population levels, and a concerted management effort resulting in a stabilized population. We used to joke about how the Gloucester fishermen would one day argue over who caught the last Haddock. Thankfully, it stayed a joke.
Are you claiming that Dr Gray has had a grant funded since 1996 that resulted in a published paper challenging the assertions of the AGW/CC majority?
I haven't seen one, but I may have missed it.
You're not just delusional, you're lying. the current Islamic state of Iran was born with the overthrow of the Shah, and one of their first acts was to take hostages.
Their relationship with Iraq was not always peaceful either.
And then you ignore their sponsorship of terrorism worldwide.
I upgraded drives in a Novell DCB some time in 2002, but those were introduced around 1986, that would only be about a 15 year life.
You think I assume a democracy when I present the argument that either government or business is in control?
Do you even read my posts?
Only the current Administration's diminishing support of Israel is emboldening Iran's threats against Israel. Iran's theocracy is more inclined to destroy Israel than not. If Iran is indeed trending towards the irrational use of force in pursuit of their religious goals, then an attack on Israel is consistent with that. The only question is what the Iranian leadership would do in preparation. Would they go into hiding and sacrifice the capital and military sites, or would they martyr themselves?
Either way, they are credible threat to Israel.
And it appears the Saudis have some concern that Iran is a threat to them.
But until we change administrations we are unable to have any useful role in that region.
I'm more concerned about Iran launching a nuclear strike against Israel.
Ignoring their anti-Semitic rants against Israel, of course.
Notable also that the Saudis seem to have an interest in nuclear weapons...
I can and do. Making things 'more difficult' for criminals is not the same as making things 'impossible'. Restricting high value currency inconvenienced drug dealers. Did it slow them down? Really?
OTOH, this certainly impacted law-abiding citizens, with no impact on the drug trade.
Misguided. And this is but one example.
I know plenty of people that commute into Manhattan to work. They get a lot of work done on the train in and out, so much so that some get paid to commute.
I'm thinking I should mount a hotspot in my car to solve the streaming problem and just do it for $10/month or so.
Uber clearly should be looking at self-driving cars as the solution to their most pressing problem - drivers.
And urban areas should see self-driving cars as a huge advantage, increasing the effective capacity of highways.Now we need electric only cars, rafting up, sharing power, so those longer commutes become simpler and cheaper, less polluting. this is a technology problem waiting to be solved and it will. Too late for me to patent that.
I, for one, welcome our self-driving overlords.
"Great, I was hoping to have at least ONE hand free to drive..."
Today, 'limited war' is either you crushing your enemy(ies) quickly, 'limiting' the casualties, or low-grade conflicts that linger.
The first Iraq War was 'limited', in that it accomplished the stated goals and pretty much ended. The second one was 'limited' in that it was less than a full-on, decisive, maximum effort conflict. It could have been, but the collateral damage would have been even more terrible.
The Syrian conflict is not 'limited', save by the capabilities of the combatants. And that's not 'limited' in the way I define it.
So long as the game is 'saber-rattling', we're fine.
"Worse yet, it encourages other countries to consider 'usable' nuclear weapons of their own."
That is already happening.North Korea may not be so ready to use theirs, but if you assign the same reluctance to Iran, you are not listening to them.
I've considered the theory that the primary deterrence to a first-strike nuclear attack by developed (and even some 'developing' countries) is their substantial industrial, social, cultural, and economic investments. They have much to lose, more than to gain from the exchange of nuclear weaponry. So they engage in brinksmanship, but ultimately have insufficient motivators to actually let loose. India and Pakistan I think prove this, and North Korea certainly does so far.
Does Iran have sufficient investments to restrain their potential use of nuclear weapons, if they do in fact acquire them? It's a conventional track for them to develop the technology, acquire the material, even develop delivery options, but the real question is, are they sufficiently restrained to not use them in plausible scenarios?
Good question. The answer, as we know in our hearts, is to not play that game. The NNPT has failed. We need to establish a new non-proliferation regime, or struggle with a new paradigm of too many players in a very small game, with very limited options.
You want to deter China or Russia?
These aren't the weapons you're looking for. We have those already.
"you are unavoidably and intentionally targeting non-combatants and infrastructure when you make the decision to use one."
Hence both the MAD protocol and the palpable reluctance to use 'conventional' nuclear weapons.
"Yes this remains true for "tactical nukes" too."
Um, if the yield is small enough, the fallout/residual radioactivity are the only detriments, and if you're targeting underground facilities, these may actually be tolerable, relative to the threat of not using them.
Put simply, nukes that are small enough and precise enough are merely really powerful bombs, and only inspire a slightly irrational response such as "ZOMG NUKES!", so are probably a last-resort option for certain tactical targets. Now, properly define 'tactical' in this context, and you can find hypotheticals that fit the bill.
Your car's tires are the same old damned tires. You just wrapped new rubber on the wheels...
"Corporations are beholden to the majority shareholders. Governments are not."
And do you realize the shareholders of our government are both the people and the 'interests' so many rail on about?
Which has the power to bend government to their will? Hint - there is more than one right answer to this. It depends...
" Do you blame a machine for being broken, or do you blame the operator for using a broken machine?"
You think the government is the machine, don't you?
You're wrong.
We are the people. We have the recognized right to free speech, assembly, and religion.
Media corporations rely on THAT to do what they do.
These people have it reversed. These are OUR rights, not theirs, first.
Law is law.
- Convince one large-ish nation to ban effective cryptography.
- Monitor incoming and outgoing communications
- Compare the weakly encrypted (decrypted therefore) with the strongly encrypted data.
- Improve your systems to be able to break the strongly encrypted data.
- Government!
Perhaps because the Federal government is one of the institutions charged with protecting our rights?
That's largely forgotten, I know...