bedifferent
May 2, 04:51 PM
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Sure it can, but it's the percentage and the variables of these "bad" incidents that are key as you are generalizing without specifics.
How about unbiased studies, and percentages of viruses and malware between the two? Those would be facts (again, from an impartial party/experiment).
Also, you're on a Mac based website, so of course there are OS X defenders. Go to Engadget, et al if you don't wish to be here, you're free to decide :)
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Sure it can, but it's the percentage and the variables of these "bad" incidents that are key as you are generalizing without specifics.
How about unbiased studies, and percentages of viruses and malware between the two? Those would be facts (again, from an impartial party/experiment).
Also, you're on a Mac based website, so of course there are OS X defenders. Go to Engadget, et al if you don't wish to be here, you're free to decide :)
Manic Mouse
Jul 13, 07:33 AM
Conroe might be possible for the iMac. But why redesign the motherboard when you can just DROP IN Merom where Yonah once was?
Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it. Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.
Because Conroes are faster, better value for money and competitive with what non-Apple desktops will offer. I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it. Would you be happy, as a consumer, if Apple decided to give you a Merom based iMac rather than a Conroe iMac just because they couldn't be bothered designing a new MoBo for the new chip? I wouldn't, which is why I intend to buy a new iMac only if they're Conroe based.
Even the top-end Merom (2.33Ghz) will not be able to keep up with the standard Conroe (2.4Ghz) and costs nearly twice as much. Which would mean the only consumer Apple desktop would not be able to keep up with even bog standard Conroe PC's from DELL (or whoever) and still cost much more. It simply makes no sense for Apple or consumers.
For example, a 2.4Ghz Conroe will cost Apple $316 however a 2.33Ghz Merom will cost Apple over $600 or a 2.16Ghz Merom $423. Now why would Apple pay over $100 more for a 2.16Ghz Merom compared to a 2.4Ghz Conroe? Merom is slower and more expensive, it makes neither logical or financial sense for Apple to use them in the iMac if they have the option of Conroe with a new MoBo. End of.
flopticalcube
Apr 26, 02:36 PM
Atheism is no more a religion than failing to believe in leprechauns is a religion..:rolleyes:
O'heresy!
But well put.
O'heresy!
But well put.
joemama
Sep 20, 07:18 PM
And I guess this is why Disney sold 125,000 movies the first week and Apple has sold millions of TV shows right?*
Please read more carefully next time. I was talking about TV and cable companies - not movies. Two completely different mediums.
And I prefaced my message with "after the initial buying rush." Of course they sold a lot of movies in the first week.
Please read more carefully next time. I was talking about TV and cable companies - not movies. Two completely different mediums.
And I prefaced my message with "after the initial buying rush." Of course they sold a lot of movies in the first week.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 08:12 AM
Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
You don't get it.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
You don't get it.
Multimedia
Oct 12, 11:08 AM
You're welcome. You take the plunge? I'm torn between the 30" or two 24" monitors. I'm thinking I may buy one 24" now, then pick up another monitor on Black Friday--hopefully after I've purchased a new Mac Pro.You think Dell will sell them for even less on Black Friday? - November 24 for you unfamiliar with the term.
Yeah I hope Apple decides to pull the trigger on the Clovertown option as soon as they can get product. That would be so cool if they do.
Definitely not 2 x 24" I think. I have the 24" and it's native HD which I use all the time as my primary television set with EyeTV2 and an EyeTV 500 - now EyeTV Hybrid. But I think the idea of having the 30" with the 24" is kind of ultimate - in a stock video card withtout a fan kind of way.
I almost did buy a second 24" in August. Then I decided that I would wait, pay down my Dell credit some more, then get the 30" which is what I'm doing now thanks in part to your coupon deal although I was prepared to pay $1444. The coupon saved me another $104 including tax. Very excited. Should arrive next week sometime.
Another reason to have a 30" is to wed it to a MacBook Pro as the ultimate mobile home base second screen. But I think the next screen I buy will be another 24 for my Mac Pro 8-core so I can leave this one on the Quad G5 that I am not selling. I think the combo of the 24" + 20" is the best budget way to go - total just over $1k. But if you're going to spend more it might as well be a little over $2k for the 24" + 30" I think.
So I'm going to wind up with:
24" + 20" on both the 2GHz Dual Core (got at Fry's for $864.26 in August) and Quad G5s
24" + 30" on the 8-Core Mac Pro.
I like the idea of having a 24" on everything because it is capable of displaying HD in its native resolution - not bigger not smaller.
But if Dell starts selling the 30" for $999 then all bets are off. :D
Having never spent any length of time with a 30", it is probably too soon to tell how much I will want two. My hunch is: a lot. :p
Yeah I hope Apple decides to pull the trigger on the Clovertown option as soon as they can get product. That would be so cool if they do.
Definitely not 2 x 24" I think. I have the 24" and it's native HD which I use all the time as my primary television set with EyeTV2 and an EyeTV 500 - now EyeTV Hybrid. But I think the idea of having the 30" with the 24" is kind of ultimate - in a stock video card withtout a fan kind of way.
I almost did buy a second 24" in August. Then I decided that I would wait, pay down my Dell credit some more, then get the 30" which is what I'm doing now thanks in part to your coupon deal although I was prepared to pay $1444. The coupon saved me another $104 including tax. Very excited. Should arrive next week sometime.
Another reason to have a 30" is to wed it to a MacBook Pro as the ultimate mobile home base second screen. But I think the next screen I buy will be another 24 for my Mac Pro 8-core so I can leave this one on the Quad G5 that I am not selling. I think the combo of the 24" + 20" is the best budget way to go - total just over $1k. But if you're going to spend more it might as well be a little over $2k for the 24" + 30" I think.
So I'm going to wind up with:
24" + 20" on both the 2GHz Dual Core (got at Fry's for $864.26 in August) and Quad G5s
24" + 30" on the 8-Core Mac Pro.
I like the idea of having a 24" on everything because it is capable of displaying HD in its native resolution - not bigger not smaller.
But if Dell starts selling the 30" for $999 then all bets are off. :D
Having never spent any length of time with a 30", it is probably too soon to tell how much I will want two. My hunch is: a lot. :p
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 08:10 PM
I didn't expect some sort of Spanish inquisition :eek:
Bingo!
Bingo!
acslater017
Apr 15, 11:00 AM
It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
What are you talking about? If you're talking about the Apple employees, this issue is obviously something that's very personal, real, and long-lasting for them. It's hardly a "hip" or "trendy" thing. If you're just talking about society (or the MacRumors forum), I don't understand that either. Many people are bullied, sure. But what's wrong with focusing on this particular group? There has been a recent spate in teen suicides due to teasing surrounding their sexual orientation.
Many people are suffering, so we shouldn't bring up the Tsunami in Japan? Wars occur all the time, so we shouldn't try to stop the genocide in Darfur?
What are you talking about? If you're talking about the Apple employees, this issue is obviously something that's very personal, real, and long-lasting for them. It's hardly a "hip" or "trendy" thing. If you're just talking about society (or the MacRumors forum), I don't understand that either. Many people are bullied, sure. But what's wrong with focusing on this particular group? There has been a recent spate in teen suicides due to teasing surrounding their sexual orientation.
Many people are suffering, so we shouldn't bring up the Tsunami in Japan? Wars occur all the time, so we shouldn't try to stop the genocide in Darfur?
Demoman
Sep 12, 07:43 PM
What do you think? Is this going to be part of a component system which may included a Blue-Ray, DVD, Mini...system stackable and user configurable?
dextertangocci
Sep 12, 04:14 PM
What is up with that price???:confused: :eek:
Is it a mistake?!?!?
It is SO cheap!
Is it a mistake?!?!?
It is SO cheap!
dukebound85
Mar 15, 07:18 PM
I did a little reading and now am a one minute expert... :p
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Yes, lack of cooing is the issue as it uncovers the core
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
Not really. When all power is lost, the plant is still able to cool itself through other means
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Yes, lack of cooing is the issue as it uncovers the core
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
Not really. When all power is lost, the plant is still able to cool itself through other means
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
BrianMojo
Sep 12, 05:09 PM
This was released to make the other movie companies fold and agree to sign and give Apple their content. Why else would they allow everyone this info this early in the game? It is to make the movie industry drool and sell their stuff through iTunes.
Nail on the head, imo.
Agreed. If it can't do HD, I'll pass.
-Sean
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
Nail on the head, imo.
Agreed. If it can't do HD, I'll pass.
-Sean
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
iJohnHenry
Apr 27, 07:18 PM
I was referring to the believers.
Ah, thanks.
It has been my experience, over many decades, that believers are rarely fun-loving individuals.
:p
Ah, thanks.
It has been my experience, over many decades, that believers are rarely fun-loving individuals.
:p
manu chao
Mar 19, 11:50 AM
By using Jon's tool, you KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY are violating an agreement that you yourself agreed to.
And if you use an Apple or AOL ID, Apple knows who is violating the agreement.
Even if the current iTMS server protocol cannot distinguish between iTunes and PyMusique, it should be quite easy to figure out how to do that distinction once Apple has its own copy of PyMusique. Then Apple can go over its server logs and get a list of the people who have used PyMusique.
Use at your own risk (or use at least gift certificates...).
And if you use an Apple or AOL ID, Apple knows who is violating the agreement.
Even if the current iTMS server protocol cannot distinguish between iTunes and PyMusique, it should be quite easy to figure out how to do that distinction once Apple has its own copy of PyMusique. Then Apple can go over its server logs and get a list of the people who have used PyMusique.
Use at your own risk (or use at least gift certificates...).
spazzcat
Mar 18, 09:06 AM
Big Thumbs up AT&T. I am glad they are just taking it to enroll people into the 2gig plan and add tethering, saves people the trouble of having to do it themselves!
Godsmack Logo PSP Go Wallpaper
PSPgo Skin and Screen
PSP Go - Whats in the Box
If you bought a PSPgo recently
TennisandMusic
Apr 21, 04:12 PM
If you don't mind, I would like to explain that.
I cannot vouch for all the people. I can vouch for most that I have seen.
I am a part of TI, SerDes which is designed in TI, UK [UK Design]. I have been to TI's headquarters [Dallas, Texas], a number of items, and everytime I go, I have seen people using iPhones and blackberries. TI still gives BB's to all the employees, but most have their personal iPhones. It was really hard to spot a guy using an android phone out of close to a thousand people I could spot on campus.
We run most of our software on SunOS 2.6 [Solaris]. We do some of our development work on Windows [which is a PAIN in the OS for no native support for PERL, Python, ClearCase, etc].
The reason I believe that's the case is because:
1. The most important: people have a life. They don't wish to tinker with the phones; whether its easy or hard, they just have no time. We buy smartphones to work for us and do everything on their own. We don't want to work for our 'smartphone' to make it usable. People just don't have time.
2. The quality of service Apple provides is hands down. The best customer service for any product that is theirs. It's great.
3. iPhone is probably the most usable phone at this time. Android is just on the other side. Widgets/Customization that's about it. Low quality apps/ No apps is the case there.
People want something that just works without much effort. These things are to simplify our lives and not complicate, so that we can concentrate on actual work.
Some people get this; some don't.
Yeah I pretty much agree on those points. I've had them all, had the iPhone 4, bought an android (Galaxy S) and a windows phone 7 (Samsung Focus) and am now back on the iPhone 4 with no regrets.
I cannot vouch for all the people. I can vouch for most that I have seen.
I am a part of TI, SerDes which is designed in TI, UK [UK Design]. I have been to TI's headquarters [Dallas, Texas], a number of items, and everytime I go, I have seen people using iPhones and blackberries. TI still gives BB's to all the employees, but most have their personal iPhones. It was really hard to spot a guy using an android phone out of close to a thousand people I could spot on campus.
We run most of our software on SunOS 2.6 [Solaris]. We do some of our development work on Windows [which is a PAIN in the OS for no native support for PERL, Python, ClearCase, etc].
The reason I believe that's the case is because:
1. The most important: people have a life. They don't wish to tinker with the phones; whether its easy or hard, they just have no time. We buy smartphones to work for us and do everything on their own. We don't want to work for our 'smartphone' to make it usable. People just don't have time.
2. The quality of service Apple provides is hands down. The best customer service for any product that is theirs. It's great.
3. iPhone is probably the most usable phone at this time. Android is just on the other side. Widgets/Customization that's about it. Low quality apps/ No apps is the case there.
People want something that just works without much effort. These things are to simplify our lives and not complicate, so that we can concentrate on actual work.
Some people get this; some don't.
Yeah I pretty much agree on those points. I've had them all, had the iPhone 4, bought an android (Galaxy S) and a windows phone 7 (Samsung Focus) and am now back on the iPhone 4 with no regrets.
appleguy123
Apr 23, 12:37 AM
Here's a hypothetical question:
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
I give it additional weight because those that believe in God are active in politics in a way that those who believe in witches are not.
We have to be careful to consider these things, lest we have a theocracy on our hands.
Do you believe in witches? (I assume the answer is no)
Now we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in witches. You probably wouldn't claim that not believing in witches requires belief.
Now the fact that you don't believe in those things doesn't necessarily preclude their existence. You just don't believe in them, because I imagine nothing in your life experiences or in the evidence you have been presented suggests that true witches exist. Would you say that this viewpoint requires belief?
Do you think it's possible that you give religion and god undue weight and consideration because so many others believe in him/her/it and you have a hard time believing that so many people could be so totally wrong?
I give it additional weight because those that believe in God are active in politics in a way that those who believe in witches are not.
We have to be careful to consider these things, lest we have a theocracy on our hands.
Old Muley
May 2, 09:36 AM
After seeing at least two posters refer to this as a "virus", I'm sitting here doing a face palm. One more "it's a virus" comment and I'm moving up to the double face palm...
darkplanets
Mar 14, 09:19 AM
A voice of reason (read the whole thing):
http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
http://reindeerflotilla.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/all-right-its-time-to-stop-the-fukushima-hysteria/
What I would like to say, better than I can say it. Awesome :D
Regarding the ship-- it is my understanding that the amount of radiation they received was one months worth of background radiation. Often people forget how low this can actually be... we're not talking rem, we're talking mrem-- you get more radiation from living in a house with radon, medical imaging, or flying on planes, just to name a few.
ender land
Apr 26, 01:32 AM
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
Dippo
Mar 18, 03:38 PM
Apple and the music industry in general will continue to rake in the $$$ regardless of this development - the real threat to the industry was always P2P, not sales.
And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.
And if the industry would sell cheaper music without DRM then P2P wouldn't be as big of a problem.
hanpa
Oct 7, 03:48 PM
This is by far far the most ridiculous request I have ever read.
You want them to use a programming language other than Objective-C?
I don't even know where to start. LOL.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
You want them to use a programming language other than Objective-C?
I don't even know where to start. LOL.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
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.
Kilamite
May 2, 09:15 AM
I don't believe this can install without user intervention? Even the screenshot shows you need to click continue.