Comment Great phrase, thank you (Score 1) 52
'That barrel you're scraping probably has a hole in the bottom by now.'
I'll try to remember that one and use it elsewhere
'That barrel you're scraping probably has a hole in the bottom by now.'
I'll try to remember that one and use it elsewhere
Some of us are capable of holding 3 distinct thoughts at once, sorry about your disability.
The population will expand at a rate supported by available resources... as the population grows, the individual's share of resources reduces and fertility and/or survival rates will drop.
It's never been a case of "oops, too many people, we all die today", it's a case of "everyone gets more and more miserable but enough people die that some will live".
That's how Nature keeps populations in check... she's not a nice lady.
There's quite a lot of nuance here, I guess, which isn't unexpected. It's quite a useful anecdote. At the very least, we can't just wave it away like it's not useful. It may generate sub-standard paintings or completely miss the point of art, but if it makes your proofs better, it seems insane to not have it help.
Chip-scale atomic clocks are a thing. The problem is that they aren't exactly low enough power to be wrist mounted as they need 115 mW constantly. You absolute can make it into a wristwatch (and people have) but it will need regular charging... unless you are using betavoltaic nuclear batteries. However to reach the power output needed with what is on the market, you would need about 120K of them.
The natural reaction to this is "what's the purpose of building up that kind of arm strength if the batteries are just going to die in 50 years?" and the answer is the diamond battery! This is a newer betavoltaic battery which is in the same power output range but lasts for thousands of years because it's based on Carbon-14.
Start doing those reps today because the watch of your dreams is 2400Kg.
Because modern journalism often misrepresents scientists statements in order to make more exciting headlines.
This time it was the scientists who were wrong. (Although it should be noted that these were Electrical Engineers not Population Scientists, and expertise in one field does not impart expertise in other fields -aka "not that kind of doctor".)
While your concern is applaudable, explain how during times in the past when CO2 was much higher than now, the world didn't end.
The rate of change is more important than the degree of change (up to a point).
A good place to see that politicians are generally clueless and incapable or unwilling to see facts. I mean, I can run my own recursive DNS with no problems and the only thing I lose is some performance from caching. There is not even a reasonable possibility to block this in the network.
To calculate something and to do a calculation is _very_ different. The second part is maybe 10% of the job.
Sure. But if they get faked, it will come back to be counterproductive. Honesty matters.
I wasn't talking about you but the guy I was originally responding to, sorry if that wasn't clear.
Yes, I hold that against both parties equally, and yes, that applies to where we are in terms of the economy, Iran, etc. I am not being partisan here.
Forced centrism is in fact not a virtue. I am being partisan but I also believe I can fully justify that.
More disturbingly, if Elvis impersonators continue multiplying at the same rate, they will account for a third of the world population by 2019.
I do my Elvis impersonations in private, so no one will ever know.
Gee, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.