But that natural cycle is dependent on there being enough plants to convert CO2, correct?
Into more plant matter- yes.
So the natural cycle would tend to stay in balance unless there was a critical mass of people or a critical shortage of plants.
Yes.
So even without releasing CO2 outside of this natural cycle, there is a threat of imbalance, right?
Not really. Plants will basically grow to take up as much earth and atmospheric carbon as they can. We are all that really slows that process down, and it's not our eating, since we re-plant most of that biomass.
Theoretically, there could be enough plants to convert "unnaturally" released CO2
Absolutely. But they'd need to cover just about every square inch of the planet.
In the end, our breathing is a function of our metabolism. Unless we are eating ourselves into starvation, our metabolism is remaining carbon neutral. For every cow we eat, we grow another. For every plant we eat, we grow another.
No. He's saying that your clearly observable fact is misleading bullshit.
Come on, you're a PhD, yes?
As I try to restrain my sarcasm, can you clearly state how a human exhaling upsets the carbon cycle?
Extra credit- what if he's a strict vegetarian?
As someone lecturing on climate science, I'm just certain you know all about carbon cycles.
More importantly, such efforts are a waste of time because science is not done by consensus
No, it isn't. But neither is the statement that "the earth is warming because of human alteration of the carbon cycle" untrue simply because they suck at telling you what the polar climate is going to do. Certainly a man as bright as you can see that.
You're doing worse than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You're telling me the sky isn't even blue, and that rayleigh scattering doesn't exist, because I misjudged the color of tonight's sunset.
I do not know what the percentage is, and neither do you, because no one has done a study that would give the answer (which is what it would take). I do know that the study which is used for the basis for saying that 97% of climatologists support AGW was utter garbage. Furthermore, how many scientists believe a theory is not the test of whether it is a good theory. The test is how accurately it predicts the results of experiments. So far, most of the predictions made based on AGW have proven wrong.
Ehhhh.
The model(s) are certainly piles of horse shit. But really- how could anyone expect otherwise? The systems being modeled are more complicated than our understanding of all of astrophysics. Trying to model local effects when dealing with something that's planetary scale is a fucking daunting task. Maybe they're silly for even trying. Don't know. But the the warming of the earth is a fact. Period. The fact that it is anthropogenic is also a fact, based simply upon core principals. Whether they can measure how the hell it affects the weather of Seattle, WA or not, our alteration of the carbon cycle can only lead to this planet warming. I'm not on either side of the debate regarding what should be done about it, but saying the "theory" (seriously, what the fuck are you talking about) of AGW is bupkis because their models suck is a bunch of bologna.
There is one core prediction of "Teh Theory of AGW" (whatever the fuck that is), and that is: if you continue to add carbon to the gaseous stage of the Earth's extant carbon cycle, the motherfucker will get warmer. Because thermodynamics. Because QED. Because fucking reality.
How is it not? Did it infringe on some right of yours? The right not to see a symbol of importance to you desecrated?
Or having it such that you can't walk out of a building without walking on it free speech?
How is it not? Are you really being serious with their queries?
Or a moving about how to kill GW Bush free speech?
Wellllll, that's protected speech, but it's also dangerous and in bad tastes, and if the threat is real, you can be prosecuted for it... and I certainly wouldn't object to it.
Did you really mean to try to spin that horse shit as an analogue to an attempt at causing someone actual physical harm?
You are one person, and your anecdote is no more valid than my anecdote, regardless of whether it involved you, or the guardian I grew up with. Sit down and shut the fuck up? that's your answer to your lame-ass broken argument from authority? You're right. Rarity of his claim precludes honesty of it. Thanks for helping me with my logic. The world needs more people like you.
Growing up with an epileptic who was triggered by flashing lights (my grandmother), flashing images almost *always* triggered this.
In fact, we removed our television after the third seizure that was triggered from it.
I was in the car with her when she learned she had epilepsy - ambulance. She lost her license after that.
Medication did seem effective at controlling those, after a time.
Later in her life, she started going what seemed to be almost a full year between seizures. Though she was never really able to leave the house, and didn't watch television... so who knows.
Again, he may be a lying scumbag, but only an idiot thinks they know what the gold-standard for epilepsy is. It's a fucking spectrum disorder caused by any one or more of a dozen different barely understood problems with your brain circuitry. We categorize them together in ways that they are similar, but they may not even be caused by the same damn pathological problem.
And so are you with regard to your claimed authority on the topic, or possibly your having the condition at all.
My grandmother was a visually-trigger epileptic. Apparently a bad one (though, the only one I know.)
Growing up with them, I witnessed 3 seizures induced simply from watching television before my grandfather removed the TV. This guy may in fact be lying, but your claim that you as an epileptic means there aren't epileptics worse than you makes you an imbecile, or dishonest. You choose which.
You are correct. But trying to hurt someone, outside of areas where you are legally entitled to (self defense, consenting) is a crime. Period.
This is really a case of 2 asshats being asshats to each other, and one of them crossing the line.
Kind of like how throwing a pipe in your buddy's bike wheel may be funny if he just eats shit, but you're likely a convicted juvenile criminal if he flies in front of a car and is turned into roadkill.
The media ran it's credibility into the ground supporting Hillary.
Perhaps with you, but with a very clear plurality of the country... not so much.
The winner of this election won because the 3/5ths Compromise is still working today to make sure the vote of a coastal citizen is worth.68 votes of the average former slave-holding state citizen.
Actually, it absolutely is. Particularly if you are a visually-triggered epileptic.
Sometimes those bombs weren't meant to hurt you, and were left a million years ago by some dimwitted kid who thought it was funny, and no one is really culpable today, and sometimes those bombs are left at your doorstep with the express intent to cause you harm.
The intent to do harm is what distinguishes between a bad joke and an assault here.
In what realm of reality is an intentional attempt at harming someone (no matter *how* ridiculous) not an attack?
Fuck, in some states, i'm fairly certain that if you were to aim an animated picture frame capable of causing a seizure at someone with epilepsy, they're legally entitled to execute you.
I get that it's the internet, and the guy is an idiot. I really do. But the intent matters, period. If you disagree with that, it's because you're just not very bright. There are plenty of ways to cause YOU harm on the internet that many other people may find you pathetic for succumbing to. I assume you'd like us to prosecute those.
The only real discrepancies are from cities known for voting fraud and letting illegals vote; however even though Clinton had the majority in such places the Electoral College did its job and protected us from that particular criminal with no regard for rule of law.
That is not, and never was the intent of the Electoral College.
The Electoral College could only ever serve that intent in the fictional, never-actually-existing circumstance where electors were unpledged. States turned the EC into what they really intended it to be from the very beginning, on day one: A way to give slave holders a voice for their property.
Agreed, she won by millions of votes, and if we lived in a Democracy
We do.
But, unlike Governors, and County Execs, and Mayors, they set this fake Electoral College up to deny us our choice.
Na, they set that up so that non-voting slaves counted as 3/5ths of a vote.
The spread of population-per-elector between the least-populated state and the most-populated state being this incredible wide is a fairly new thing in history.
We haven't increased the number of representatives (and thus electors) since 1908. Unfortunately, to bring it back to the parity it was at in the 1800s, we'd need 2000 representatives in Congress.
She didn't "win" a damned thing! Thanks to the wisdom of the founders, we have the electoral college so that the "more people" in California and New York don't get to rule the rest of the country.
We have the electoral college because a large geographical chunk of the country had too few voting people to effectively represent themselves in a presidential election. The Electoral College came about as a compromise between people who wanted a popular vote, and people who wanted the 3/5ths Compromise to work for presidential elections as well. Don't call it wisdom. Or do- but at least know what its real intention was.
There were also people who legitimately wanted electors to buffer the vote, but there's a reason electors are based on state congressional representation, and not state population. The idea of winner-take-all electoral assignment and pledged electors were also never ever part of the plan. Even in the original outline of the electoral college, it's highly unlikely Trump would have won.
I'm not here to argue that Hillary didn't lose fair and square. She did. But the ignorant folks claiming this is what the founders intended the EC to do are inventing history.
That's a fascinating reading of Trump's record-setting largest-loser-of-the-popular-vote-to-ever-win-the-electoral-college victory.
Frankly, I think you're just a fucking idiot.
Trump won because.08% of the populace decided to vote for him in 2 states that mattered. Those particular people didn't vote for him for a single one of those reasons you listed. They voted for him because globalization has destroyed their lives, and they were unable to adapt. Even though NAFTA didn't take their jobs, it was a good scapegoat for the ignorant.
If you aren't in one of the states that formed the upset, or the collapse of Hillary's so-called wall of blue, then you didn't do shit to elect that man. You did about as much as you did to elect Romney, and McCain before him. The same group of ignorant asshats vote red reliably every single time. It's the democratic vote that fluctuates. This time.08% of those dems shifted in just the right place for a man to win with the largest negative popular vote margin in history.
This election isn't some kind of affirmation of the legitimacy of your stupid views. The people didn't speak. You didn't speak. Get the fuck over yourself.
The problem with historical evidence, is it can be interpreted to point in any direction that you want. There are too many confounding factors.
Actually- I was agreeing with you. The argument that inflation will track the lowest wage on the ladder is pure poppycock.
People who say this can generally outline why they think it, and it does make basic sense, it's just not borne out by reality.
People keep saying something like this whenever the government talks about raising minimum wage, and although it is true that costs do go up somewhat, the net long term effects on society as a whole have historically always been an increase in the standard of living for those on the lowest rungs of the earnings ladder.
Why would a UBI be any different?
Because a scary amount of people in this country take a shattered economic theory as gospel.
No amount of evidence that it is wrong- to the point in many instances of reality being a diametric opposite of its predictions- will ever convince these people, because they were raised believing it, and few people ever throw the yoke of the beliefs they were indoctrinated with as children. Cognitive dissonance is real, and it is strong.
(P.S. I don't think any of the "war fighting" plans would actually work -- If anyone attacks at least one of the 5 declared nuclear states then MAD is the way it will go).
When it takes so few ballistics to quite literally knock an entire country back to the pre-industrial age... ya.
The loss of every major American or Russian city would permanently remove them from the global balance of power. Even a nuclear exchange with a small declared state is simply the end of the line for both players in world politics. MAD is quite literally all you can even ever hope for. A war machine won't last long with a 90% reduction in national economic output.
Agreed- today in ARMv8 land, it's actually not too bad to work with at all at low-level.
Before ARMv7, it will still common to find vendor-specific MMU implementations (fucking kill me)
Linus' argument will wash anyone who's worked with ARM since the early days with nostalgia and nausea. They know what he's talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Breathing does in fact make a contribution towards the greenhouse effect.
Technically, yes. The exact same way that taking a shit contributes to weight loss.
But that natural cycle is dependent on there being enough plants to convert CO2, correct?
Into more plant matter- yes.
So the natural cycle would tend to stay in balance unless there was a critical mass of people or a critical shortage of plants.
Yes.
So even without releasing CO2 outside of this natural cycle, there is a threat of imbalance, right?
Not really. Plants will basically grow to take up as much earth and atmospheric carbon as they can. We are all that really slows that process down, and it's not our eating, since we re-plant most of that biomass.
Theoretically, there could be enough plants to convert "unnaturally" released CO2
Absolutely. But they'd need to cover just about every square inch of the planet.
In the end, our breathing is a function of our metabolism. Unless we are eating ourselves into starvation, our metabolism is remaining carbon neutral. For every cow we eat, we grow another. For every plant we eat, we grow another.
No. He's saying that your clearly observable fact is misleading bullshit.
Come on, you're a PhD, yes?
As I try to restrain my sarcasm, can you clearly state how a human exhaling upsets the carbon cycle?
Extra credit- what if he's a strict vegetarian?
As someone lecturing on climate science, I'm just certain you know all about carbon cycles.
More importantly, such efforts are a waste of time because science is not done by consensus
No, it isn't. But neither is the statement that "the earth is warming because of human alteration of the carbon cycle" untrue simply because they suck at telling you what the polar climate is going to do. Certainly a man as bright as you can see that.
You're doing worse than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You're telling me the sky isn't even blue, and that rayleigh scattering doesn't exist, because I misjudged the color of tonight's sunset.
I do not know what the percentage is, and neither do you, because no one has done a study that would give the answer (which is what it would take). I do know that the study which is used for the basis for saying that 97% of climatologists support AGW was utter garbage. Furthermore, how many scientists believe a theory is not the test of whether it is a good theory. The test is how accurately it predicts the results of experiments. So far, most of the predictions made based on AGW have proven wrong.
Ehhhh.
The model(s) are certainly piles of horse shit. But really- how could anyone expect otherwise? The systems being modeled are more complicated than our understanding of all of astrophysics.
Trying to model local effects when dealing with something that's planetary scale is a fucking daunting task. Maybe they're silly for even trying. Don't know. But the the warming of the earth is a fact. Period. The fact that it is anthropogenic is also a fact, based simply upon core principals. Whether they can measure how the hell it affects the weather of Seattle, WA or not, our alteration of the carbon cycle can only lead to this planet warming. I'm not on either side of the debate regarding what should be done about it, but saying the "theory" (seriously, what the fuck are you talking about) of AGW is bupkis because their models suck is a bunch of bologna.
There is one core prediction of "Teh Theory of AGW" (whatever the fuck that is), and that is: if you continue to add carbon to the gaseous stage of the Earth's extant carbon cycle, the motherfucker will get warmer. Because thermodynamics. Because QED. Because fucking reality.
How is showing the flag in a toilet free speech?
How is it not? Did it infringe on some right of yours? The right not to see a symbol of importance to you desecrated?
Or having it such that you can't walk out of a building without walking on it free speech?
How is it not? Are you really being serious with their queries?
Or a moving about how to kill GW Bush free speech?
Wellllll, that's protected speech, but it's also dangerous and in bad tastes, and if the threat is real, you can be prosecuted for it... and I certainly wouldn't object to it.
Did you really mean to try to spin that horse shit as an analogue to an attempt at causing someone actual physical harm?
You are one person, and your anecdote is no more valid than my anecdote, regardless of whether it involved you, or the guardian I grew up with. Sit down and shut the fuck up? that's your answer to your lame-ass broken argument from authority? You're right. Rarity of his claim precludes honesty of it. Thanks for helping me with my logic. The world needs more people like you.
Growing up with an epileptic who was triggered by flashing lights (my grandmother), flashing images almost *always* triggered this.
In fact, we removed our television after the third seizure that was triggered from it.
I was in the car with her when she learned she had epilepsy - ambulance. She lost her license after that.
Medication did seem effective at controlling those, after a time.
Later in her life, she started going what seemed to be almost a full year between seizures. Though she was never really able to leave the house, and didn't watch television... so who knows.
Again, he may be a lying scumbag, but only an idiot thinks they know what the gold-standard for epilepsy is. It's a fucking spectrum disorder caused by any one or more of a dozen different barely understood problems with your brain circuitry. We categorize them together in ways that they are similar, but they may not even be caused by the same damn pathological problem.
And so are you with regard to your claimed authority on the topic, or possibly your having the condition at all.
My grandmother was a visually-trigger epileptic. Apparently a bad one (though, the only one I know.)
Growing up with them, I witnessed 3 seizures induced simply from watching television before my grandfather removed the TV. This guy may in fact be lying, but your claim that you as an epileptic means there aren't epileptics worse than you makes you an imbecile, or dishonest. You choose which.
What the fuck will you guys call speech, next? The way you pull a trigger?
And if you're sensitive to penetration by high velocity spinning cones of lead, don't leave your house without wearing Kevlar. Duh.
You're not wrong, of course. But you are victim-blaming.
Keep in mind, being asshat is not a crime.
You are correct. But trying to hurt someone, outside of areas where you are legally entitled to (self defense, consenting) is a crime. Period.
This is really a case of 2 asshats being asshats to each other, and one of them crossing the line.
Kind of like how throwing a pipe in your buddy's bike wheel may be funny if he just eats shit, but you're likely a convicted juvenile criminal if he flies in front of a car and is turned into roadkill.
The media ran it's credibility into the ground supporting Hillary.
Perhaps with you, but with a very clear plurality of the country... not so much. .68 votes of the average former slave-holding state citizen.
The winner of this election won because the 3/5ths Compromise is still working today to make sure the vote of a coastal citizen is worth
You know that... right?
Actually, it absolutely is. Particularly if you are a visually-triggered epileptic.
Sometimes those bombs weren't meant to hurt you, and were left a million years ago by some dimwitted kid who thought it was funny, and no one is really culpable today, and sometimes those bombs are left at your doorstep with the express intent to cause you harm.
The intent to do harm is what distinguishes between a bad joke and an assault here.
In what realm of reality is an intentional attempt at harming someone (no matter *how* ridiculous) not an attack?
Fuck, in some states, i'm fairly certain that if you were to aim an animated picture frame capable of causing a seizure at someone with epilepsy, they're legally entitled to execute you.
I get that it's the internet, and the guy is an idiot. I really do. But the intent matters, period. If you disagree with that, it's because you're just not very bright. There are plenty of ways to cause YOU harm on the internet that many other people may find you pathetic for succumbing to. I assume you'd like us to prosecute those.
The only real discrepancies are from cities known for voting fraud and letting illegals vote; however even though Clinton had the majority in such places the Electoral College did its job and protected us from that particular criminal with no regard for rule of law.
That is not, and never was the intent of the Electoral College. The Electoral College could only ever serve that intent in the fictional, never-actually-existing circumstance where electors were unpledged. States turned the EC into what they really intended it to be from the very beginning, on day one: A way to give slave holders a voice for their property.
Agreed, she won by millions of votes, and if we lived in a Democracy
We do.
But, unlike Governors, and County Execs, and Mayors, they set this fake Electoral College up to deny us our choice.
Na, they set that up so that non-voting slaves counted as 3/5ths of a vote.
The spread of population-per-elector between the least-populated state and the most-populated state being this incredible wide is a fairly new thing in history.
We haven't increased the number of representatives (and thus electors) since 1908. Unfortunately, to bring it back to the parity it was at in the 1800s, we'd need 2000 representatives in Congress.
She didn't "win" a damned thing! Thanks to the wisdom of the founders, we have the electoral college so that the "more people" in California and New York don't get to rule the rest of the country.
We have the electoral college because a large geographical chunk of the country had too few voting people to effectively represent themselves in a presidential election. The Electoral College came about as a compromise between people who wanted a popular vote, and people who wanted the 3/5ths Compromise to work for presidential elections as well. Don't call it wisdom. Or do- but at least know what its real intention was.
There were also people who legitimately wanted electors to buffer the vote, but there's a reason electors are based on state congressional representation, and not state population. The idea of winner-take-all electoral assignment and pledged electors were also never ever part of the plan. Even in the original outline of the electoral college, it's highly unlikely Trump would have won.
I'm not here to argue that Hillary didn't lose fair and square. She did. But the ignorant folks claiming this is what the founders intended the EC to do are inventing history.
That's a fascinating reading of Trump's record-setting largest-loser-of-the-popular-vote-to-ever-win-the-electoral-college victory.
.08% of the populace decided to vote for him in 2 states that mattered. Those particular people didn't vote for him for a single one of those reasons you listed. They voted for him because globalization has destroyed their lives, and they were unable to adapt. Even though NAFTA didn't take their jobs, it was a good scapegoat for the ignorant.
.08% of those dems shifted in just the right place for a man to win with the largest negative popular vote margin in history.
Frankly, I think you're just a fucking idiot.
Trump won because
If you aren't in one of the states that formed the upset, or the collapse of Hillary's so-called wall of blue, then you didn't do shit to elect that man. You did about as much as you did to elect Romney, and McCain before him. The same group of ignorant asshats vote red reliably every single time. It's the democratic vote that fluctuates. This time
This election isn't some kind of affirmation of the legitimacy of your stupid views. The people didn't speak. You didn't speak. Get the fuck over yourself.
The problem with historical evidence, is it can be interpreted to point in any direction that you want. There are too many confounding factors.
Actually- I was agreeing with you. The argument that inflation will track the lowest wage on the ladder is pure poppycock.
People who say this can generally outline why they think it, and it does make basic sense, it's just not borne out by reality.
People keep saying something like this whenever the government talks about raising minimum wage, and although it is true that costs do go up somewhat, the net long term effects on society as a whole have historically always been an increase in the standard of living for those on the lowest rungs of the earnings ladder. Why would a UBI be any different?
Because a scary amount of people in this country take a shattered economic theory as gospel. No amount of evidence that it is wrong- to the point in many instances of reality being a diametric opposite of its predictions- will ever convince these people, because they were raised believing it, and few people ever throw the yoke of the beliefs they were indoctrinated with as children. Cognitive dissonance is real, and it is strong.
(P.S. I don't think any of the "war fighting" plans would actually work -- If anyone attacks at least one of the 5 declared nuclear states then MAD is the way it will go).
When it takes so few ballistics to quite literally knock an entire country back to the pre-industrial age... ya.
The loss of every major American or Russian city would permanently remove them from the global balance of power. Even a nuclear exchange with a small declared state is simply the end of the line for both players in world politics. MAD is quite literally all you can even ever hope for. A war machine won't last long with a 90% reduction in national economic output.
Fair enough... 12 SLBMs.
The point is, I think people don't fully understand the level of overkill even the smallest nuclear-armed players are capable of
Pity about the UK counterstrike taking out all cites in Russia with more that 190 thousand people.
That would require about 10 ICBMs. I think the brits can do a little better than that.
Agreed- today in ARMv8 land, it's actually not too bad to work with at all at low-level.
Before ARMv7, it will still common to find vendor-specific MMU implementations (fucking kill me)
Linus' argument will wash anyone who's worked with ARM since the early days with nostalgia and nausea. They know what he's talking about.
But it just really isn't the case these days.
That's a funny spelling of "Trump"