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 shouldn't be at the poles. It should be quite hot:
I'm burning through the sky yeah!
Two hundred degrees
That's why they call me Mister Fahrenheit

Because the ITU made a plan how to get to the new G5 standard:
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/study-groups/rsg5/rwp5d/imt-2020/Pages/default.aspx

Like this one form 2004?

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/01/03/1722240/researchers-claim-1000-core-chip-created

E-bikes will stall for one simple reason: the car lobby will make sure wide spread adoption will not be possible. They will introduce 'safety' laws to 'protect' E-bike riders from those 'dangerous' speeds up to 20 mph. You will need to wear a helmet, pass an exam (and will be re-examinated verey year if possible), pay taxes and a liability insurance for when a car crashes into you^H^H^H^H^H^H^H you crash into a car.

Donald Trump will declare riding a E-bike is un-American, wasn't invented here, and will forbid them when hes is president.

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.

Self driving cars will be a lot safer for bicycles, pedestrians and so on. The software in the car is always vigilant and will actually see them and stop for them. Their awareness of other road user might be their biggest problem. People just will take priority of self driving cars because they know the car will stop in time to prevent an accident.

Nyh

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?

Exactly. It is far more better to spend this amount of money defending the oil interests in the middle east. Big oil and the weapons industry made billions. So that is 100% OK! Money flowing the right direction. Why spend this amount of money in science? No one has interests in science!

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