sure... he got a puff piece in "national law journal"... clearly he's the next emperor of the galaxy.
You put in the vertical qualifier like it is difficult to stack shit on top of each other.
There are plenty of pot growers that use "wavelength tuned" LEDs to grow pot.
Give me a fucking break. In fact... just fuck me. That comment was so painfully annoying in its obtuseness that I deserve a blowjob just to take my mind off f'ing dumb that vertical qualifier was...
As to abandoned factories... go turn Detroit into the salad bowl of America then... what are you waiting for?
I don't want to hear about the fucking blue and red LEDs anymore like that is some kind of recent innovation. That has been going on for ages.
As to hydroponics being more expensive than soil... not as expensive as fucking LEDs. But that sure isn't stopping you is it?
As to costs declining... Sun light is free... good luck with your cost structure competiting with that. Here you're going to say "but in this urban factory blight area"... I'm sure... but you're not competiting against farms in other fucking factories. You're competiting against a sunny field some where with an unobstructed view of the sky, long clear days, good irrigation, and of course a global transit system that can move that produce anywhere in the world pretty damn cheaply pretty damn quick.
I am literally fucking sitting here chopping up a pineapple that was grown in Hawaii. I believe it cost me 4 dollars. Have fun with your revolution sport. I rather suspect the Empire will surprise you with a fully operational agro business battle station.
âoeWar is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.â
I don't doubt you can do that in your room in your apartment. I have a large pepper crop in my home that is largely kept healthy by an LED array I built.
However, I wouldn't pretend my pepper garden is commercially viable.
I bought 10 dollars worth of organic pesticide today. Mostly strong smelling plant oils... my house sort of smells like peppermint mixed with garlic right now. The point is that what do you think my peppers will ultimately be worth when it comes time for harvest? I might get something between seven and ten pounds of peppers this year. Total up what I spend keeping the peppers happy every year and it would be MUCH cheaper to just buy fresh peppers from the store.
I can't compete with commercial operations and that is without counting my personal labor into it because I count it all as entertainment.
My home is full of edible perennials. But do you know what portion of my diet is sustained by all this stuff? Less than a percent of a percent. And my house is FULL of edible plants.
It gets better though because I've even tried the whole sprouting thing. I got pretty good at it. I still bake sprouted wheat berries into my bread, I have sprouted mung beans in my stir fry, and when I make sandwiches... I use alfalfa sprouts.
But it makes up a relatively tiny portion of my diet. Practically everything I eat comes from the store just like everyone else.
And even if I were growing enough just to feed myself... and using canning and freezing to preserve large harvests so I could have something to eat when something wasn't being actively harvested... it would both consume all of my time and I really doubt I'd be saving any money because I'd be spending as much or possibly more on stuff to keep the garden going... and then because that's not bad enough, I can't promise that the quality of those crops would be consistent.
Look... I went through this explanation so you could get past the purity tests and grasp that I would like all these things to work. I really would.
The problem is that in so far as I understand the numbers they do not.
I think you can make green house growing work for tomatoes in certain markets where tehy can't grow them for large portions of the year. But that is assuming SUNLIGHT.
I'm not counting weed here because that is a product that is only so valuable because it is mostly illegal. It is artificially expensive. If it were fully legalized the Tobacco companies have been gearing up for YEARS to jump on that bandwagon. Imagine fields of planted weed that go on for MILES.
When agro business really gets serious about that the price of it is going to crash so hard that these closet pot farms aren't going to make any more sense economically than my pepper plants. You can still do it... but you'll be doing it for fun like me.
To really produce commercially you need ACREAGE. You think stacking your crops on top of each other and bathing them in little beams of LED light is going to get you parity but you don't appreciate how much cheaper it is to just till the earth, jam seeds into it, then spray water over the top... Miles upon miles of crop land that way of whatever you want to grow.
Look at a Hawaiian pineapple farm. you can't compete or green house that competitively.
Tomatoes you might get away with because they're really iffy plants that are damaged easily by almost anything and every pest imaginable likes to eat them. So you green house them because they're nature's sissy. but even then I wouldn't buy those LEDs and then pay the electrical bill to power those things when I could just use the sun to do it. If you live really far north or really far south and you can't get decent sun... then you're not in a good location to grow that crop.
As to growing things on other planets. The economics and logistics of that situation are not comparable. You can't truck in fresh supplies every week if you're on mars. On earth though... you can. And often as not that is the most efficient way to do it.
I know... people don't like cars and trucks because fossil fuels and climate change... but there is environmentalism and there is pathological obsession.
If you're talking about competing with agro business... you had better fucking be practical because they are going to be damned hard to beat.
Every small farmer I've seen that was actually able to make a living... even a small one had to charge a lot more to break so much as even. And to charge more you have to find people willing to pay more. Which often as not is actually a hard sell. If your farm is near a big city... maybe you can get some restaurant that does organic or locally grown whatever as a gimmick. But that's about your only hope.
Offer up a version of the the package that is small enough to be audited in detail so that there are very very very few bugs with it.
I think they said they had it down to 6k? So do that. Obviously that strips out a lot of features people like. So decide what is more important to you.
security or covering your car with stickers and truck nuts.
good security has to be simple. you get complicated and you get something that can't be fully understood well enough to debug.
info from the US would be the most easily audited... you can provide your cost calculations.
If any of it appears valid then I'll personally start farming this way... no really.
I've low expectations of your ability to validate anything so I'm not checking with the bank to see what kind of loan i can get. But... hit me with your info.
I'm a "muh free speech" type.... you don't understand people like me if you think we're hypocrites.
All the bad things that come with free speech... we accept it.
Think of the way the American public accepts the 2nd amendment despite that fact being incomphrensible to most europeans.
The fact that you can't understand a perspective is poor basis to start judging it. You have to understand it first... THEN judge it.
Free speech people like myself are willing to accept hate speech directed at us or anyone else. That's just an understanding in the same way that if you accept the guns there are going to be issues with gun violence. There's no way out of that.
I'm telling you that people like me go into this with our eyes open. I know what I'm paying for free speech and I accept that.
Freedom isn't free. You have to pay for any right... upfront and then there are maintenance payments.
Some freedoms have to be bought with blood and horror and pieces of your soul. You pay or you lose that freedom.
A price of free speech is that people are going to say things that you don't like... which is the least of what free speech costs. Quibbling over that is nothing compared to the full price... which does include blood, splattered human brains, gore, horror... and young men with wide eyes and trembling hands.
If you can't even pay one of the very minor costs which is tolerating speech that hurts your fee fees... then... you can't afford free speech at all. Free speech is one of the pricier freedoms.
Its a freedom that if you have to ask what it costs... you can't afford it. Because its demands are high and ongoing.
Keep in mind... wars have been fought over this issue... quite of them in fact. The freedom for one group of people to think and believe and say what they wish without having an external orthodoxy imposed on them..
If you want to live in a hug box, that's super. I will totally protect your right to kick people out of your hug box that invade it. But your hugbox... your safe space... is the only place you get that right. Anywhere else... you're either in "no man's land"... or possibly you're asking to be protected from the speech of other people while inside THEIR hug box.
If you're in the fat shaming board... that's their board. Their weird little hug box where they make themselves feel better by talking trash on some other group. Which is what mostly happens in hug boxes from what I've seen. They're all basically full of people that are all one way and they mostly talk about those evil people that don't see things the exact way they do.
I'm not protecting you from being offended AND presuming to give you free speech.
You can have one or the other. Not both.
Its a question of whether you want to b a coddled peasant or self reliant citizen. Peasants need to be protected... poor ignorant excitable semi humans that they are.... Citizens don't need to be protected in general... they're expected to be personally formidable enough to deal with most things on their own. And if there is something exceptional... they can typically gang up with each other and annihilate anything. State or corporate involvement is not required.
I just don't think his opinions are newsworthy anymore.
The president could pardon Snowden in a heartbeat if he wanted to. That the administration takes this tone is because they're told to by the head of it.
Do you have any information to support that position?
Because I'm pretty sure people have been farming in muddy fields with the economic input of some cowshit and manual labor for tens of thousands of years.
We do things outside because it is the cheapest method.
you've got free sunlight... agricultural land is CHEAP. You build away from anything else... why do you think some factory space near a city is going to have remotely comparable realestate prices to some field in the middle of Iowa or Kentucky or wherever? You find cheap land with good sun, good soil, and access to water... and you farm it. We have a massive... and very efficient agro business sector. I don't know why you think they're this incompetent at their jobs that they wouldn't do things in the best possible way.
I think this sort of thing makes the most sense for small growers... home growers... maybe specialty growers that can get a higher price. But the economics can't work out if you're selling your products to a canning plant or something. And that tells you that you need that higher price to remain viable.
I cared what he thought when he was able to effect anything. Now he's just another jerk on the street... like you or me or that guy over there picking his nose.
So why do I give a flying fuck what he has to say now? Useless.
hmmm... lets look at the legal code:
So, first degree harassment requires some sort of legitimate physical threat.
The second degree harassment appears to include anything that annoys someone.
I mean... technically you'd be guilty of that against me... you annoy me all the time.
Frankly, I think the second degree harassment is so loose in its definition that it's very vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation. I mean... I could shut people up all day by citing harassment simply because X, Y, or Z thing they said annoyed me.
Look, I think a big requirement for harassment is if someone gets into your personal space and won't leave you alone. If you're a public place... who has a right to be one place versus another is debatable.
I agree with you that they shouldn't be going to annoy people in other subreddits. But the response to that is to ban the users that do that or perhaps to set up a system where if someone is a member of subreddit X they can't be a member of subreddit Y. That would be okay.
But when you ban subreddit X from even existing... you've crossed a line. And there are going to be consequences because that sort of speech won't stop.
We saw this very clearly in the whole gamer gate thing in that there was an attempt to censor that COMPLETELY failed. Every time the conversation was disallowed in various places it just went somewhere else... and then it got something of the streisand effect... which was a HUGE part of gamer gate... in that every attempt to censor actually brought more attention to the issue.
Had people NOT censored it and just let it happen it would have burned itself out in a week. Instead, the censorship made it last for damn near 6-8 MONTHS.
I know you're a big fan of censoring people that aren't PC. The problem is that that attitude is obsolete. Its a tactic and concept that was invented before the internet. And it doesn't work on the internet.
You can't really censor people. Even the Chinese are having very limited results censoring opinion. The only people I know of that have figured out how to censor the internet are the North Koreans.
Everyone else has pretty much failed. I mean, you can talk to people in Iran about how they think the ruling regime is full of shitheads and that's against so many laws in Iran.
I think you're supporting something with good intentions... but I also think you are being naive about the consequences of what you're doing and that the net result of it all is going to be something other than what you think. I also think you are going to create a blow back to the censorship that is going to make people that normally wouldn't sympathize with the fat shamers etc... sympathize with them if only out of free speech concerns.
And rather than create this more civil society that I think you want... I think you're going to stir up a certain level of increasingly and proportionally militant anarchism where every escalation of efforts on your part to censor is going to be met with an escalation from people that see the nature of your response as a threat to their freedoms.
Possibly you might find this interesting. The chinese have a domestic political tactic they call "loosening and tightening"... The idea is that they loosen regulations to make people happy and less rebellious against the communist party. Then when people start to use that freedom to say or do things against the regime they go into a crack down phase and tighten regulations. Then when that starts to create a counter movement they go into a loosening phase again.
Back and forth. The idea is not to have a single consistant policy but to shift between two policies to balance various political considerations.
The point I'm trying to make here is that even people that set up autocracies understand what I'm talking about here. If you want to dominate the discussion and control speech... you're going to have to be more sophisticated about it. Simply charging in and pushing an agenda and not regrouping every so often... or making a feint... or any kind of complexity in your tactics... to just... push something and bull through... its not going to work. I say this as someone that is happy it won't work.
But I'm trying to get you to see what what you're doing... even if you support the notion in theory... which I do not... will fail in practice because it fails to take into consideration the consequences and responses of that behavior on the political and social landscape.
I hope you don't see me as your enemy or something in this... that would make me sad to a certain extent. Because for all our differences we're more alike in this world than we are different. The world is full of very very different cultural outlooks than either of us would likely be comfortable with... and if we can't trust each other to watch other's backs... then we might as well whip out our straight razors, turn out the lights, and see which of us can cut the other's throat in the dark.
A certain amount of mutual consideration and accommodation is required to sustain a society. I don't like being told what to do, what to say, or what thoughts are acceptable or unacceptable.
The records were showing a cooling trend until they were recalibrate.
Some of the recalibration were obviously valid. Others are not as clear cut. For example, the orbital decay correction was entirely valid.
Regardless, even the corrected datasheets don't show warming if you look from 1998 to today
The whole "pause" thing which is argued started in 1998 and what caused people to start looking for where the heat went. You're saying into the ocean... because it isn't in the air.
70.0 - 82.5 is the global table. The other columns address different regions.
Do you see the problem?
The sea rise is linear. Our rate of emissions have not been exponential. Explain how the CO2 even correlates with that when the trend lines don't match?
The rate of change in emissions should be reflected in the rate of change in the environment assuming these systems respond quickly to these changes.
What we're seeing is LINEAR changes to exponential inputs. That implies the two variables don't even correlate much less one being caused by the other.
Also sort of interesting is this data on on the CO2 concentrations:
I find it interesting that basically was flat from 58-64... as you can see it ramps up going faster and faster towards the present.
Anyway, I'd like to see if we can get a single point emission of CO2... something large enough to be detectable globally for some period of time. I think a large volcanic erruption might create such a rise... and then I'd like to see how long it takes for the trend line to return to normal.
Your IPCC citation assumes 120 years. I don't understand how that is possible. We're emitting 1 percent of total atmospheric carbon every year and the rate of actual change in our environment is about 1/3rd of our emissions.
That implies that 2/3rds of our emissions are being taken out of the atmosphere and not re-emitted ANNUALLY. If 2/3rds of our emissions are being removed and not re-emitted annually... then what does that do to the life expectancy of emitted CO2?
The IPCC figure you're citing is 120 years... that seems obviously impossible. And your other figures you were cited were ranging from 100-30 years... which means we have range of 30 to 120 years just from your citations.
We're talking about the 6 foot tall man give or take 30 feet again. As to serious debate, you're in one right now to the extent that any such thing can happen on the internet. I'm not interested in your political references. Stop making them. I'm utterly indifferent to how many people agree with you.
As to your data on increases in carbon... I didn't say carbon wasn't increasing. I said that the rate of increase in the carbon doesn't match the increase in our emissions. If the time it stays in the atmosphere is 120 years as the IPCC says or around the 100 year range that wikipedia says... then we should see a closer match between emissions and atmospheric concentration. The discrepancy can only be explained by the biosphere sinking the carbon... possibly in the oceans if you like but still out of the air. And even the 30 year figure seems dubious to turn an exponential curve into a linear one.
As to Turley et al 2006, you're skipping over my request for a longer trend line on pH values in the ocean. I don't trust the shorter trend lines because they can be more easily cherry picked. I mean I could claim global cooling if I picked that period of time from 64 to 78 or whatever that window of time when the temps went down. You need to back out to get a more reliable trend line. I'd like to see pH values from at least 1900. I know they exist. I've seen records for them. But apparently they're not considered valid as of... about 10 years ago I think. And that's a little convenient.
As to unwillingness, this is how debate works, pal. If you find the process tedious and don't like having to validate your positions then I don't know what kind of a scientist you think you are in the first place.
As to how much CO2 we put out... I think I did a rough calculation of that. Roughly 1 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere currently is emitted each year by humans. So... if there 100 units of CO2 in the air... the humans are emitting 1 unit in a given year... as of 2015. By the calculations I did the actual rate of increase in CO2 shows that about 2/3rds of that is absorbed by the biosphere at least because the rate of change in the atmosphere has been less than 1/3rd our emissions.
I find that to be interesting. That implies a very rapid uptake. And again, I'd like to know how quickly the CO2 from a large volcanic eruption lasts in the atmosphere. I think that's a good test. One of those goes off and the CO2 ppm of the whole world changes noticeably. The question is how many years before it returns to baselines? Because that will tell you how long it took for that CO2 to get eaten.
As to Hansen... So this covers 5 years during a solar minimum.... and the imbalance figure is significantly lower than previously thought.
In addition, he says we need to reduce CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm to restore balance... we're nearing 400 ppm.
An imbalance I would point out does not prove causation... I would also point out that warming the seas... especially the upper seas is going to do all sorts of unpredictable stuff to humidity, clouds, etc. I think there are a few long term deserts that have started to turn green after thousands of years of being bone dry because they're getting water again. So... whether or not any of this is actually bad is debatable.
As to dismissing peer reviewed papers, I'm not doing that. Please don't start strawmanning me... it makes it hard to have this discussion. My point is that I can't just trust that what it says is valid because it went through that process. The process is not infallible. So it is not immune from audit, scrutney,, or skepticism. Just because something goes through that process doesn't mean it can't be questioned.
Dunning-Kruger effect, this citation has become trite and becomes little more than an appeal to authority or ad verecundiam at this point. You want to call me stupid? Then just do that. I can think of a similarly dismissive insult for you and that will be the end of any discussion. Is this what you want? I have no insecurities about my own intelligence. I know I'm smart. Saying otherwise would be false modesty on my part. I've a life time of validation to fall back on in this regard. If you don't want to have a discussion, then I don't know why you've even presuming to have gone this far. If you wanted me to drop to my knees and just accept whatever you say... then you were always going to be disappointed there. Choose please. Do you want a discussion or do you want to trade insults? I assure you... insulting people on the internet is one of my better honed talents at this point. So I'll probably if anything become more formidable. Moving on.
As to political arguments, I'm not repeating myself. If you want to have a political discussion, we can do that. But the nature of the discussion will shift dramatically to one of power, influence, and money. Choose. Do you want science or politics? I'm not interested in attempts to conflate the two.