Comment Re:In favor of AR I guess (Score 1) 52
Surely you mean submersive? Subversive would the militia guys.
Yes, submersive is what I meant, auto-correct apparently had other ideas.
Comment Re:"perceived foes" (Score 1) 183
So yes, Joel O'Steen is pretty much a well paid entertainer, who like Britney Spears, should be paying some income taxes.
Joel Osteen probably pays more in taxes per year than you earn. Just because donations to a church are tax exempt does not mean the employees don't pay taxes. I don't know where you get your information from.
Comment Re:In favor of AR I guess (Score 2) 52
I think it's pretty clear that the future is AR, not VR... VR is kind of neat, but just not nearly so versatile as AR so it doesn't make sense to duplicate effort to support a subset of something much more useful.
It depends on the application. VR is much more subversive, and better for some things like games. I have a PSVR, and it's great in small doses. The biggest problem is the hardware. The goggles are comfortable for a little while, but after an hour or so it gets heavy, your face is sweating and the lenses get foggy. Plus it has to be plugged in and you have to sit at a certain distance from the camera. If they can figure those problems out, it will gain wider adoption.
Comment Re:Nah, we just need to implement it right (Score 1) 435
It does not matter if it is big government or small. As long as elections are driven by money then the richest corps/people will control what laws are written.
You have it turned on it's head. The only reason rich corps dump so much money into elections is that the government has so much control over everything. Small/limited government wouldn't be worth meddling with.
Some Corals Grow After 'Fatal' Warming 112
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: For the first time ever, scientists have found corals that were thought to have been killed by heat stress have recovered, a glimmer of hope for the world's climate change-threatened reefs. The chance discovery, made by Diego K. Kersting from the Freie University of Berlin and the University of Barcelona during diving expeditions in the Spanish Mediterranean, was reported in the journal Science Advances on Wednesday.
Kersting and co-author Cristina Linares have been carrying out long-term monitoring of 243 colonies of the endangered reef-builder coral Cladocora caespitosa since 2002, allowing them to describe in previous papers recurring warming-related mass mortalities. [T]he researchers found that in 38 percent of the impacted colonies, the polyps had devised a survival strategy: shrinking their dimensions, partly abandoning their original skeleton, and gradually, over a period of several years, growing back and starting a new skeleton. They were then able to gradually re-colonize dead areas through budding. "Coral are made up of hundreds to thousands of tiny creatures called polyps that secrete a hard outer skeleton of calcium carbonate (limestone) and attach themselves to the ocean floor," the report mentions. In order to be sure that the polyps were the same animals staging a comeback, "the team used 3D computer imaging to confirm the old, abandoned skeleton was connected to the new structure."
"This process of 'rejuvenescence' was known to exist in the fossil record but had never before been observed in coral colonies that exist today." While further investigation is required, the team says the findings open up the possibility that other modern corals around the world might be apply similar strategies to survive.
Kersting and co-author Cristina Linares have been carrying out long-term monitoring of 243 colonies of the endangered reef-builder coral Cladocora caespitosa since 2002, allowing them to describe in previous papers recurring warming-related mass mortalities. [T]he researchers found that in 38 percent of the impacted colonies, the polyps had devised a survival strategy: shrinking their dimensions, partly abandoning their original skeleton, and gradually, over a period of several years, growing back and starting a new skeleton. They were then able to gradually re-colonize dead areas through budding. "Coral are made up of hundreds to thousands of tiny creatures called polyps that secrete a hard outer skeleton of calcium carbonate (limestone) and attach themselves to the ocean floor," the report mentions. In order to be sure that the polyps were the same animals staging a comeback, "the team used 3D computer imaging to confirm the old, abandoned skeleton was connected to the new structure."
"This process of 'rejuvenescence' was known to exist in the fossil record but had never before been observed in coral colonies that exist today." While further investigation is required, the team says the findings open up the possibility that other modern corals around the world might be apply similar strategies to survive.
Comment Re:The data is inconclusive. (Score 4, Funny) 315
And since people like to eat meat (and humans are not vegetarians by nature, as a brief look at human teeth amply demonstrates), the quality of life aspect is definite in comparison. There is also the hard fact that everybody dies sooner or later, so eating meat will not "kill" you, it will, in the worst case, just cost you some time.
A new study confirms exactly this! Study Finds Avoiding Red Meat May Lead To Longer, More Miserable Life
'We Can't End Climate Change Without Changing Our Eating Habits' (theguardian.com) 393
Saturday the Guardian published a call to action by the author of the new book, We are the Weather: Saving the Planet Begins at Breakfast:
[W]e cannot save the planet unless we significantly reduce our consumption of animal products. This is not my opinion, or anyone's opinion. It is the inconvenient science. Animal agriculture produces more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire transportation sector (all planes, cars and trains), and is the primary source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions (which are 86 and 310 times more powerful than CO2, respectively). Our meat habit is the leading cause of deforestation, which releases carbon when trees are burned (forests contain more carbon than do all exploitable fossil-fuel reserves), and also diminishes the planet's ability to absorb carbon. According to a recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, even if we were to do everything else that is necessary to save the planet, it will be impossible to meet the goals of the Paris Climate Accord if we do not dramatically reduce our consumption of animal products...
There is a place at which one's personal business and the business of being one of seven billion earthlings intersect. And for perhaps the first moment in history, the expression "one's time" makes little sense. Climate change is not a jigsaw puzzle on the coffee table, which can be returned to when the schedule allows and the feeling inspires. It is a house on fire. The longer we fail to take care of it, the harder it becomes to take care of, and because of positive feedback loops -- white ice melting to dark water that absorbs more heat; thawing permafrost releasing huge amounts of methane -- we will very soon reach a tipping point of "runaway climate change", when we will be unable to save ourselves, no matter how much effort we make...
The four highest impact things an individual can do to tackle the planetary crisis are: have fewer children; live car-free; avoid air travel; and eat a plant-based diet... [E]veryone will eat a meal relatively soon and can immediately participate in the reversal of climate change. Furthermore, of those four high-impact actions, only plant-based eating immediately addresses methane and nitrous oxide, the most urgently important greenhouse gases.... We cannot keep eating the kinds of meals we have known and also keep the planet we have known. We must either let some eating habits go or let the planet go. It is that straightforward, and that fraught.
Beef has the biggest "greenhouse gas impact," according to a recent article in the New York Times (followed by lamb and then "farmed crustaceans.") While there's also some impact from pork, poultry, farmed fish and even eggs, their table suggests it's a small fraction when compared to the climate impact of beef and lamb.
There is a place at which one's personal business and the business of being one of seven billion earthlings intersect. And for perhaps the first moment in history, the expression "one's time" makes little sense. Climate change is not a jigsaw puzzle on the coffee table, which can be returned to when the schedule allows and the feeling inspires. It is a house on fire. The longer we fail to take care of it, the harder it becomes to take care of, and because of positive feedback loops -- white ice melting to dark water that absorbs more heat; thawing permafrost releasing huge amounts of methane -- we will very soon reach a tipping point of "runaway climate change", when we will be unable to save ourselves, no matter how much effort we make...
The four highest impact things an individual can do to tackle the planetary crisis are: have fewer children; live car-free; avoid air travel; and eat a plant-based diet... [E]veryone will eat a meal relatively soon and can immediately participate in the reversal of climate change. Furthermore, of those four high-impact actions, only plant-based eating immediately addresses methane and nitrous oxide, the most urgently important greenhouse gases.... We cannot keep eating the kinds of meals we have known and also keep the planet we have known. We must either let some eating habits go or let the planet go. It is that straightforward, and that fraught.
Beef has the biggest "greenhouse gas impact," according to a recent article in the New York Times (followed by lamb and then "farmed crustaceans.") While there's also some impact from pork, poultry, farmed fish and even eggs, their table suggests it's a small fraction when compared to the climate impact of beef and lamb.
Comment Re:Bring it back (Score 1) 138
Here's an idea, how about we stop electing lawyers to represent us in Congress. Let's get people that know science, technology, business, foreign relations, or business. Let's elect farmers, soldiers, surgeons, nurses, roofers, ranchers, carpenters, plumbers, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers. Let's get people that know how the world works in Congress.
Those people typically don't have the time or money to run. Lawyers can take time off, run & still get paid a minimum by their firm because which law firm doesn't want a congressman/senator in their pocket?
Comment Re:KKK and double standards (Score 2) 495
I guess you haven't seen the KKK's logo before?
Sure I have, but that's not the kind of cross typically associated with Christianity. Most Christian denominations will depict the cross as having a longer vertical stroke than the horizontal one.
For instance:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
http://images.clipartpanda.com...
https://internetmonk.com/wp-co...
Comment Re:Swastikas (Score 1) 495
You should have followed your own link and seen: "Both the left-facing and right-facing variants are employed in Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism".
I just glanced at the link. Good to know.
Comment Re:Generation Snowflake. (Score 3, Informative) 495
They literally spend their entire time trying to find things to offend them.
It's one of the symptoms of affluenza (definition A).
Comment Re:How do you tell (Score 2) 495
If it's a hate OK or an okay OK?
Depends on what color Emoji you use. But apparently even using a darker emoji if you're white will offend some people.
Comment Re:KKK and double standards (Score 5, Informative) 495
Its weird how the Swastika is verbotten because Hitler used it but the Cross is not verbotten even though the KKK used it.
They were burning them, so not exactly a sign of respect for the symbol.
Comment Re:Swastikas (Score 2) 495
The Swastika was a holy symbol for 3000 years before Hitler coopted it and now its verbotten.
The Hindu "swastika" goes the other direction. I guess you can't expect too many people to notice the difference though. I think it is ironic though that Antifa has decided to use the same colors as the Nazis.
Comment Re: Climate change is inevitable (Score 1) 626
Back to the old "climate change is good" argument I see.
You probably won't say that when your house is underwater and millions of other people are all clamouring for the good bits of land left.
That must be why Obama just bought a $14 million mansion on Martha's Vineyard.
We can't adapt to climate change at the speed it is going.
Yes we can.
We only have one planet and we can't afford to test your theory on it. I'm also assuming you don't want to pay the cost of adapting anyway.
Yes, you're correct.
