Right.

But even that has its limit. This limit is reached when the rate at which houses and furniture rot or burn, equals the rate at which new logs are being extracted from thr forest.

So even with logging, in the end the forest+wood stops absorbing CO2.

Right.

But even that last part has its limit. This limit is reached when the rate at which the old wood rots or burns, equals the rate at which new logs are being extracted from thr forest.

So even with logging, in the end the forest+wood stops absorbing CO2.

Let it be clear that I only challenge the notion of a forest as a net consumer of CO2.

I do not challenge any of the many, many positives of forests. They are incredibly valuable in many ways - even if their net CO2 consumption (and oxygen production) is zero.

Can anyone tell me how a forest can consume CO2?

Sure, a newly planted forest consumes CO2. The forest gains mass, and the mass gain is proportional to the total amount of CO2 that was consumed.

Similarly, if the story is true, the forest gains mass, so it must have consumed CO2.

But... both are temporary...

Any forest that is mature and in equilibrium has constant mass. Which means that it cannot absorb any CO2 at all.

Is this reasoning correct? If not, where's the flaw?

What is a step?

If I count foot-touching-floor, and I walk like left-right-left-right-left-right, what is my step count: three, or six?

It might have, of course.

If the first observation would have been one of a green square "thingy", then that would have been how the Universe would look today.

Of course, observing a green square "thingy" is only possible if that is still possible, given all the observations that have been made up to that point - or, to word it differently, given the Universe that we created up to that point.

Perhaps the laws of physics dictate that there must be one civilization in the universe. Not less, not more.

Why? Because life, or consciousness, can only exist if the laws of physics are consistent.

Let me provide an example description. In the beginning, there was human consciousness. Nothing else existed. For example, there was no Sun.

The latter statement should be read as "Sun was not". So I'm not saying that the Sun didn't yet exist. What I'm saying is that not even the concept of "Sun" existed. "Sun" wasn't present, "Sun" wasn't absent. It didn't exist, it didn't not-exist. It just "was not". It was like "undefined".

But then, the consciousness looked upward, and observed a yellow disc.

From that moment on, the number of possible universes was greatly reduced. Until this disc was observed, many universes were possible: ones with a yellow disc of course, but also ones with a green square, ones without any such thing, ones with 42 dodecahedrons circling each other, and so on. But as soon as the yellow disc was observed, the number of possible universes was reduced to those were a yellow disc could exist.

And so on for all other observations. Each new observation reduced the amount of possible universes we could be living in. One could say that human consciousness created the known universe, just by observing it.

Now imagine that the universe contained two, or even more, consciousnesses that independently observed the universe. That's impossible! They would be independent, so they would be creating different universes. Yet they would also have to be in the same universe we are in if we were ever to observe them. These two requirements are incompatible.

Therefore, we are alone. We must be. Because there's only one law of physics, which is the law of consistency.

Open-source pharma already exists. It's called homeopathy. Though it's still around and amazingly popular, it does not work.

Why should we expect open-source pharma to be different from homeopathy, or from phytotherapy at best?

This sounds like the good old VMS operating system - though I do not know how many bytes that occupie[sd].

It's quite simple. First, the star underwent a small blast, too small to be detected, in which it expelled a layer of gas. That gas formed a cloud around the star. Then, there was an ordinary blast. What we saw was the gas cloud being illuminated by the ordinary blast.

Some 18 months ago, I started to have problems reading, especially in darker environments. Reading the menu in some restaurants was getting real hard.

My ophtalmologist proposed to try two different contact lenses (I use contact lenses for many years already). One lens, for my left eye, would have optimal focus at short distances. The other lens, for my right eye, would have optimal focus for long distances.

My ophtalmologist told me that some people love this setup while others just get nausea, so I could try them for a month. If I decided they were not for me, I could replace them with ordinary contact lenses at no cost (but then I would of course need reading glasses). If I liked them, I could keep them.

I kept them. I love them.

My brain automatically uses the eye that's most suited for the distance I'm focusing at. So now, reading from the computer screen, I use my left eye. If I close my left eye and use my right eye to look at the screen, things get a bit blurry.

Similar for long distances. When driving, my brain automatically uses the right eye, so I can see traffic and traffic signs in good focus. If I close my right eye while driving, things get blurry.

This all happens totally automatically. I do not have to spend any effort.

Estimating speeds and distances is still possible. I have no problems catching a ball thrown toward me, and I can still estimate the locations and speeds of cars, cyclists and pedestrians while driving. It seems 3D vision still works when one image is sharp while the other one is blurry.

I use contact lenses, but my ophtalmologist told me this setup works with (single focus) glasses too.

I suggest you propose this setup to your ophtalmologist and see what (s)he says.

But the view of the Milky Way would be gorgeous!

How can you call self-checkout the next logical step?

Self-checkout systems are commonplace. Even the elderly and tech-averse use them. Heck, I've even seen them in just another random supermarket somewhere in Poland, and that was in 2009.

Wow...!

You still write checks? How cute! ;-)

I'm in my mid 40's now. I never wrote a check. They're definitely a thing of the past. You find them in some monetary museums. Even my father never wrote checks. My grandfather (who was born in 1898), however, once told me he wrote checks when he was young.

An email address travels through several systems between you and the other side. This applies to the time when you fill in your email address in a web form, and even more so when the company sends out emails to your address.

Thus, it may be premature to conclude that the fault is with the company. Eavesdropping may have occurred at any of the intermediate systems.