sectime
May 9, 03:07 PM
I don't understand why someone would stay with AT&T if they are having so many dropped calls. With Verizon offering phones like the Droid Incredible and Motorola Droid it is possible to switch to a more reliable carrier and still have an "iPhone like" experience. I don't see the iPhone coming to Verizon anytime soon. If you really want an iPhone then just get a Touch and get a Verizon Android phone to go with it.
Of course it is your money, but I would be upset if I was paying my phone bill every month and not getting reliable service.
That's what I did after getting my Ipad. Droid has great reception no more dropped and missed calls
Of course it is your money, but I would be upset if I was paying my phone bill every month and not getting reliable service.
That's what I did after getting my Ipad. Droid has great reception no more dropped and missed calls
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 03:38 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
alex_ant
Oct 9, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read.
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read.
Macs aren't a poor buy, though... they're only a poor buy if your primary concern is maximum performance. I doubt they're any less stable than PCs. They are slower, but in my experience they are much more enjoyable computers to use. You will have to weigh your need for performance against this.
techwarrior
Nov 12, 12:14 PM
Add me to the happy list. I have had all iPhones since 3G, and rarely lose a call, one or two places I typically go have poor service so I let others know I will call back if I drop in these spots. MCell has done wonders for the poor service at my home.
ATT is the only service I can get at work. Due to my office being an R&D facility for a company that makes phone systems they block all external wireless signals and then put ATT repeaters in the building.
So, for me, it would take a lot to push me over the edge to move to another provider. I do like how others are pushing ATT to adopt with more competitive plan options and think competition from TMo, Sprint/Nextel and Vz can only be good for those of us who can stay with ATT.
ATT is the only service I can get at work. Due to my office being an R&D facility for a company that makes phone systems they block all external wireless signals and then put ATT repeaters in the building.
So, for me, it would take a lot to push me over the edge to move to another provider. I do like how others are pushing ATT to adopt with more competitive plan options and think competition from TMo, Sprint/Nextel and Vz can only be good for those of us who can stay with ATT.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 02:44 PM
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
Japanese officials are saying it's highly likely there is a partial meltdown occurring in three reactors.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
Japanese officials are saying it's highly likely there is a partial meltdown occurring in three reactors.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 09:29 PM
http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
mpstrex
Aug 29, 07:22 PM
What about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article
Cooling, warming, cooling, warming...Sheesh, it's almost like it's mother nature, NOT us. Doesn't she know it's US! And that little ice age in the 16th to 18th centuries? what's that all about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
Again, sheesh. It's like mother nature is doing it herself!!! And jeez, how about the greenhouse effect? I thought it was bad until my college Blue Planet teacher told us that if we didn't have it, the planet would be one big snowball. None of the students knew what to think, after years of telling us greenhouse effects are bad. Thank god all those carbon dioxide emissions are breathed up by plants...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article
Cooling, warming, cooling, warming...Sheesh, it's almost like it's mother nature, NOT us. Doesn't she know it's US! And that little ice age in the 16th to 18th centuries? what's that all about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
Again, sheesh. It's like mother nature is doing it herself!!! And jeez, how about the greenhouse effect? I thought it was bad until my college Blue Planet teacher told us that if we didn't have it, the planet would be one big snowball. None of the students knew what to think, after years of telling us greenhouse effects are bad. Thank god all those carbon dioxide emissions are breathed up by plants...
RaceTripper
Mar 24, 06:54 PM
Aw, poor Vatican. Are your medieval feelings hurt?
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:59 AM
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
AceWilfong
Apr 24, 03:34 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
People don't like the idea of no longer existing, and religion solves that.
Plus, it is a way to control people. A very effective one! That's why it is still here today in the age of science. Religion has been refined over thousands of years to make sure it keeps itself going and keeps people believing without question.
This book says there is an invisible man in the sky who made the earth. We know this because the invisible man wrote the book. He listens to you but doesn't answer. If you do as he says you go to a wonderful afterlife, but if you don't you go to a horrible one.
Excellent! And it would not surprise me to learn that religion was invented by Kings, not Gods.
People don't like the idea of no longer existing, and religion solves that.
Plus, it is a way to control people. A very effective one! That's why it is still here today in the age of science. Religion has been refined over thousands of years to make sure it keeps itself going and keeps people believing without question.
This book says there is an invisible man in the sky who made the earth. We know this because the invisible man wrote the book. He listens to you but doesn't answer. If you do as he says you go to a wonderful afterlife, but if you don't you go to a horrible one.
Excellent! And it would not surprise me to learn that religion was invented by Kings, not Gods.
Mac Fly (film)
Sep 21, 12:49 PM
So if you, and everyone else will have a bit of patience, Apple will work their way out to you.
What are you a comedian? Give me a break. I expected this sort of reaction. It's very easy to say that when you're not the one being effected by this.
What are you a comedian? Give me a break. I expected this sort of reaction. It's very easy to say that when you're not the one being effected by this.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 01:19 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
The International Butterfly
Butterfly Pink and Purple
purple crown earrings and cz
glittery purple butterfly LWP
Butterfly desktop wallpaper
Purple Buterflies
purple flower wallpaper
BillHarrison
Sep 12, 04:28 PM
Which cost what, five times what this will cost? The stuff you have will never go mainstream, it's way too expensive.
Because that would be far more expensive, with little potential to get cheaper. Something based on a full computer would never get cheap enough to really catch on.
Whoa there! Setting up a media center / 360 extender setup is far from 5x the price of the iTV. As a matter of fact, the 360 is the SAME price as the iTV, 299$.
You of course will need a media center pc to make this work, but you need a pc/mac to make the iTV work as well, so thats an added expense on either side.
Oh, did I mention the 360 plays some REALLY fun games? (Dead rising :D)
Actually I could probably do both methods for around the same price, (900 ish) but with the Media Center you get true TIVO capability, all from your couch. Trust me, it works, and it works well.
That said, I applaud apple for trying, but they have a ways to go in this area. One of the things keeping me from the big switch.
Because that would be far more expensive, with little potential to get cheaper. Something based on a full computer would never get cheap enough to really catch on.
Whoa there! Setting up a media center / 360 extender setup is far from 5x the price of the iTV. As a matter of fact, the 360 is the SAME price as the iTV, 299$.
You of course will need a media center pc to make this work, but you need a pc/mac to make the iTV work as well, so thats an added expense on either side.
Oh, did I mention the 360 plays some REALLY fun games? (Dead rising :D)
Actually I could probably do both methods for around the same price, (900 ish) but with the Media Center you get true TIVO capability, all from your couch. Trust me, it works, and it works well.
That said, I applaud apple for trying, but they have a ways to go in this area. One of the things keeping me from the big switch.
jk8311
Sep 12, 03:24 PM
This is the same thing as having a mac mini connected to your TV...though I guess it has HDMI. This leads me to believe that they will release a Software Update for Front Row upon release of the "iTV".
Now, who wants to start speculating when this device will become the long-rumored TiVO killer? Doesn't look like there's much room back there to fit in a coax - seems like Apple missed out on a decent opportunity...
Now, who wants to start speculating when this device will become the long-rumored TiVO killer? Doesn't look like there's much room back there to fit in a coax - seems like Apple missed out on a decent opportunity...
Mord
Jul 12, 04:19 AM
exctly what i have been saying this last year.
we all know thinksecrets record lately.
we all know thinksecrets record lately.
takao
Mar 15, 05:39 PM
i can't find a good source for timed updates.
all things seem to go together and i can't really tell what's new and what's not.
one thing seemingly emerging as really problematic is the spent fuel pools.
I can't understand how it is possible that the design puts it in the worst possible place (in terms of management during a crisis) and without ANY containment protection.
it's crazy.
puma, can explain the rationale?
afaik it's more designed as a holding pool for fuel rods to be put in and those just recently taken out
the problem seems to be that reactor 4 has been shut off for maintance works, thus many of the normal fuel rods seem to have been taken out of the reactor and put into the basin ... but that is only as far as i heard
information flow has been rather limited because there was night in japan so i suspect the next hours we will get more informations/press releases again
edit: tepco is reporting readings of 300-400 mSv in the broken structure of reactor 4 which makes it difficult to control the fire and restore the water level in the pool
all things seem to go together and i can't really tell what's new and what's not.
one thing seemingly emerging as really problematic is the spent fuel pools.
I can't understand how it is possible that the design puts it in the worst possible place (in terms of management during a crisis) and without ANY containment protection.
it's crazy.
puma, can explain the rationale?
afaik it's more designed as a holding pool for fuel rods to be put in and those just recently taken out
the problem seems to be that reactor 4 has been shut off for maintance works, thus many of the normal fuel rods seem to have been taken out of the reactor and put into the basin ... but that is only as far as i heard
information flow has been rather limited because there was night in japan so i suspect the next hours we will get more informations/press releases again
edit: tepco is reporting readings of 300-400 mSv in the broken structure of reactor 4 which makes it difficult to control the fire and restore the water level in the pool
dgbowers
Apr 5, 10:53 PM
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
You can drag pretty much any folder down to the Dock, and you can make Aliases (Shortcuts) of any application you want, then put them in a folder on the Dock.
Check my screenshot for what I mean.
Do keep in mind that you can just drag the apps to the Dock and keep them there, I hardly ever go into my Applications folder, because all of the things I use every day are in the Dock.
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
You can drag pretty much any folder down to the Dock, and you can make Aliases (Shortcuts) of any application you want, then put them in a folder on the Dock.
Check my screenshot for what I mean.
Do keep in mind that you can just drag the apps to the Dock and keep them there, I hardly ever go into my Applications folder, because all of the things I use every day are in the Dock.
bradl
Mar 12, 02:05 AM
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
Sendai is well north of Tokyo. 189mi/304km.
Hiroshima is 894km/482mi south of Tokyo, with Nagasaki being 960km/596mi south of Tokyo.
In short, at least 5 - 10 hour's drive.
BL.
so much radiation!!!:eek:
Sendai is well north of Tokyo. 189mi/304km.
Hiroshima is 894km/482mi south of Tokyo, with Nagasaki being 960km/596mi south of Tokyo.
In short, at least 5 - 10 hour's drive.
BL.
Silentwave
Jul 13, 08:29 AM
I've been wondering about this too. Surely they have the source code (or most of it) written in a high level language, right? If I'm not totally mistaken, there shouldn't be that much more work involved than a re-compilation for x86. Even if some filters or other stuff are hand coded in assembler, they already have that code in x86-assembler in the Windows version.
Adobe is weird...but I think they have a lot more up their sleeve than just universal. I think they want it to run extremely well on intel macs, and perhaps continue work at the same time on making more of their features take advantage of quads.
Adobe is weird...but I think they have a lot more up their sleeve than just universal. I think they want it to run extremely well on intel macs, and perhaps continue work at the same time on making more of their features take advantage of quads.
theBB
Sep 12, 04:24 PM
I just hope it gets hacked so 3rd parties can add functionality to it. (unlike front row)
video chat
screen savers
3rd party applications
RSS
3rd party streaming media formats
keyboard and mouse.
larger remotes.
Get a Mac mini.
video chat
screen savers
3rd party applications
RSS
3rd party streaming media formats
keyboard and mouse.
larger remotes.
Get a Mac mini.
tigress666
Apr 9, 11:59 AM
I am firmly against poaching executives. They should always be deep-fried.
Bah! Stir-frying is better! Healthier too.
Bah! Stir-frying is better! Healthier too.
Amazing Iceman
May 2, 07:04 PM
Ah, Geek Squad... Do they let you drive the Bug?
Sorry, I don't work for Best Buy... They don't pay enough... and their employees don't really know much about anything, specially about MACs.
You go ahead, drive the bug and be happy.
Sorry, I don't work for Best Buy... They don't pay enough... and their employees don't really know much about anything, specially about MACs.
You go ahead, drive the bug and be happy.
Gelfin
Mar 26, 12:59 AM
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
You are either knowingly full of it or being intentionally insulting. Likely both.
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
You are either knowingly full of it or being intentionally insulting. Likely both.
A church is entirely inconsequential to marriage. I know you believe you need the permission of a magic man in the sky to insert your penis into someone, but that is of no practical value to anyone. Including you; you just don't know it.
Marriage in the modern sense is the set of legal policies a society constructs in respect of a voluntary commitment between consenting adults. Homosexuals cannot take part in this status, for no rational reason, in part because people like you have been persuaded by the prejudiced teachings of your fairy tales that you have the right to force even non-Catholics to seek the approval of your magic buddy, to pretend that your religion owns the institution of marriage, and has the right to dictate that governments enforce it on your terms and behalf.
You seem to be going further, openly mocking gay people, compounding the insult of your support for illegitimately depriving them of equal standing in society by suggesting they should be grateful to you for the magnanimity of allowing them an ersatz costume wedding.
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
0 comments:
Post a Comment