The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of fresh
>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With cooling
>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in general,
>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>
>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt. That's a
>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>
>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and turn the
>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the first time in
>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never really being
>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>
> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and Siberian
> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely worse than
> Scotland

Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting tundra :-D

--
<rm_-rf_> The real value of KDE is that they inspired and push the
development of GNOME :-)
-- #Debian

On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of fresh
>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With cooling
>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in general,
>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>
>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt. That's a
>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>
>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and turn the
>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the first time in
>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never really being
>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>
>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and Siberian
>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely worse than
>> Scotland
>
> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting tundra :-D

There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41
KDE supporting member

On 06/01/2025 10:50, D wrote:
> unless they live off government handouts, in which case they are really
> just a branch of government.

No. Government is just another branch of the companies.

It's called 'state capture' or 'crony capitalism'

The more overtly socialist and 'caring' the government is, the easier is
it to bend its motives towards state sponsored profit.

Not a single windfarm or solar farm has been built without massive state
incentives.

--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

On 2025-01-06, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2025-01-05, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> We have achienved something no other species has done. Science.
>>
>> Someone once pointed out, though, that for all the great things
>> science can do, it can't make the sun shine brighter or the
>> rivers run faster. If our consumption continues to increase,
>> sooner or later we'll hit the crunch.
>
> We can use things more effectively, we can build nuclear. In terms of
> power we have no problem out all. This is a solved problem and only
> requires political will.

No amount of political will can solve the coming shortages, because
that's not where the will is being applied. It's all going toward
increasing our population beyond the ability of science to provide,
and ensuring that technological advances will never catch up with
ever-increasing demand. (Besides, shortages drive prices up, which
is good for The Economy.)

>>> Add to that the ability to plan long term, and there's nothing
>>> to fear.
>>
>> Given the scarcity of companies that can see past the next quarter,
>> I think there's quite a lot to fear.
>
> There are companies that are older than countries.

And I'm sure a lot of them bumble along in their short-sighted way,
depending on massive financial reserves to carry them through the
downturns.

>>> We can even nudge asteroids out of the way, should it be necessary.
>>
>> Or not. See the Netflix movie _Don't Look Up_.
>
> Sorry, forgot that source of eternal truth.

Not eternal truth, perhaps, but way too plausible for comfort.

>>> I'd argue, that we've actually far, far safer from changes in
>>> climate and our surroundings than we have ever been before.
>>
>> Well, the rich folk are, at least.
>
> You can become rich too! Remember the locust protein company we've been
> talking about. The idea is just sitting there for you to realize it! =D

_We_ are the locusts. See my .sig.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On 1/5/25 8:22 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
> On 2025-01-05 02:54, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 1/4/25 9:01 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-04 17:13, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>> On 1/4/25 10:14 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-01-04 03:32, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/3/25 3:10 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-01-03 09:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 03/01/2025 13:56, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-03 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 02/01/2025 20:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-02 14:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 08:36:41 -0500, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find GNOME rather clunky whereas KDE, at least on Fedora
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Nobara,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is perfect out of the box. I imagine that a lot of people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> who try out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux and face GNOME are going to wonder how to do the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> basics, and they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will likely find that the way extensions work is rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clunky,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially during upgrades. Meanwhile, KDE is very familiar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and offers a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ton of features they could only dream of in Windows like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the desktop
>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects, theming options and widgets. Unlike Cinnamon too,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the widgets
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in KDE actually work as they should.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Ubuntu box has GNOME. I live with it but I'm not a fan.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd rather
>>>>>>>>>>>> have a menu structure rather than the 'Show Applications'
>>>>>>>>>>>> button that
>>>>>>>>>>>> brings up three or four screens of unsorted stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> GNOME was designed with the belief that anyone looking for an
>>>>>>>>>>> application will press the Windows key and then type the name
>>>>>>>>>>> of what they're looking for rather than select it from a
>>>>>>>>>>> menu. That's how I do it whether I use Windows, GNOME or KDE
>>>>>>>>>>> so I would agree with their design choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Odd, since MATE - a superset of GNOME - expects you to use a
>>>>>>>>>> menu. Its very XP like.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And since XP was what I was running when I switched entirely
>>>>>>>>>> to Linux, I didn't have to relearn very much at all..
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are talking about GNOME _now_ not then.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fairy Nuff. I have no idea what it is now, but MATE is still
>>>>>>>> built on gnome3  libraries AFAIK
>>>>>>>> And was a sort of fork of gnome2 desktop
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I always thought that MATE used GTK2. If it indeed uses GTK3, all
>>>>>>> the better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    GTK3 is a little better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    MATE isn't horrible, but it's still not my fave.
>>>>>>    LXDE is my fave - JUST ENOUGH GUI. It's small
>>>>>>    and it's sane and does what you need the way
>>>>>>    you'd expect. Somewhere between the Win-2k
>>>>>>    and XP experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    DID like Win-2K ... still have it in a VM and
>>>>>>    DO use it sometimes. Still ran 8/16 ... a big
>>>>>>    advantage for people who love 'antique'-ware.
>>>>>>    Nice simple GUI with few frills.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't used much of LXDE but I know that I liked it. If I
>>>>> remember correctly, that was what I installed on the computer I
>>>>> bought my parents in the 2000s. I'm surprised that LXQT isn't as
>>>>> interesting though. I used it for a moment a few months ago.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    LXQt ... just ain't the same somehow - different feel.
>>>>    Was still buggy too when I was fooling around with it.
>>>>    'PCManFM'-qt also wasn't as friendly.
>>>>
>>>>    Anyway, my choices are LXDE or, second, XFCE. I do not
>>>>    care for 'eye candy' or excessive 'integration' much.
>>>>    KDE obviously went in the other direction, almost may
>>>>    as well buy Winders.
>>>>
>>>>    At least with Linux there are MANY choices for desktops.
>>>
>>> It's the customization options of KDE that got me interested. You can
>>> customize GNOME to an extent, but it's needlessly difficult whereas
>>> KDE includes just about everything you would need immediately. XFCE
>>> is even more customizable, but I find it to be somewhat dated.
>>> Additionally, it is way too easy to break something specifically
>>> because of how open it is to being modified by the user.
>>
>>    Well, I never try to mod it very much - so no probs.
>>
>>    Biggest issues revolve around kinda faulty detection
>>    of the mousepad. Had to go kinda deep and weird to
>>    help there. Were also a few brightness-default issues
>>    with the display (but that was X-related, not so
>>    much XFCE). Had these issues with several distros,
>>    they don't seem to like laptops. Probs with HPs and
>>    with some Dells also (including the latest Fedora).
>>
>>    Anyway, LXDE is what does it for me. "Dated" is
>>    JUST GREAT in my aesthetic  :-)
>
> I used to not have a problem with things that were dated either since
> they used less RAM and ended up being more responsive, but I started to
> miss certain subtle additions in newer interfaces. With 32GB of RAM, you
> stop being so anal about high memory usage too.

Maybe I'm from just too far back ... can't stand
wasting a byte or cycle for more than the basics :-)

Anyway, I don't like 'desktop integration' or eye
candy, so LXDE seems to be 'the basics' of a
bearable GUI. Some of the 'tiled' ones work, but
are just too ugly and clunky IMHO. Some die-hards
will disagree there ... and then there's the
terminal/scripts-only fascists ......

I remember when the i4004 was the most neat-o new
thing, lots of micro-controllers with BYTES of RAM.
Creates a mindset.

On 2025-01-06 19:21, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 1/5/25 8:22 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>> On 2025-01-05 02:54, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>> On 1/4/25 9:01 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>> On 2025-01-04 17:13, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/25 10:14 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-01-04 03:32, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/3/25 3:10 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-03 09:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 03/01/2025 13:56, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-03 06:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 02/01/2025 20:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-01-02 14:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 08:36:41 -0500, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find GNOME rather clunky whereas KDE, at least on Fedora
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Nobara,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is perfect out of the box. I imagine that a lot of people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who try out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux and face GNOME are going to wonder how to do the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basics, and they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will likely find that the way extensions work is rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clunky,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially during upgrades. Meanwhile, KDE is very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> familiar and offers a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ton of features they could only dream of in Windows like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the desktop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effects, theming options and widgets. Unlike Cinnamon too,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the widgets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in KDE actually work as they should.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Ubuntu box has GNOME. I live with it but I'm not a fan.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a menu structure rather than the 'Show Applications'
>>>>>>>>>>>>> button that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> brings up three or four screens of unsorted stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> GNOME was designed with the belief that anyone looking for
>>>>>>>>>>>> an application will press the Windows key and then type the
>>>>>>>>>>>> name of what they're looking for rather than select it from
>>>>>>>>>>>> a menu. That's how I do it whether I use Windows, GNOME or
>>>>>>>>>>>> KDE so I would agree with their design choice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Odd, since MATE - a superset of GNOME - expects you to use a
>>>>>>>>>>> menu. Its very XP like.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And since XP was what I was running when I switched entirely
>>>>>>>>>>> to Linux, I didn't have to relearn very much at all..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We are talking about GNOME _now_ not then.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fairy Nuff. I have no idea what it is now, but MATE is still
>>>>>>>>> built on gnome3  libraries AFAIK
>>>>>>>>> And was a sort of fork of gnome2 desktop
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I always thought that MATE used GTK2. If it indeed uses GTK3,
>>>>>>>> all the better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    GTK3 is a little better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    MATE isn't horrible, but it's still not my fave.
>>>>>>>    LXDE is my fave - JUST ENOUGH GUI. It's small
>>>>>>>    and it's sane and does what you need the way
>>>>>>>    you'd expect. Somewhere between the Win-2k
>>>>>>>    and XP experience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    DID like Win-2K ... still have it in a VM and
>>>>>>>    DO use it sometimes. Still ran 8/16 ... a big
>>>>>>>    advantage for people who love 'antique'-ware.
>>>>>>>    Nice simple GUI with few frills.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't used much of LXDE but I know that I liked it. If I
>>>>>> remember correctly, that was what I installed on the computer I
>>>>>> bought my parents in the 2000s. I'm surprised that LXQT isn't as
>>>>>> interesting though. I used it for a moment a few months ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    LXQt ... just ain't the same somehow - different feel.
>>>>>    Was still buggy too when I was fooling around with it.
>>>>>    'PCManFM'-qt also wasn't as friendly.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Anyway, my choices are LXDE or, second, XFCE. I do not
>>>>>    care for 'eye candy' or excessive 'integration' much.
>>>>>    KDE obviously went in the other direction, almost may
>>>>>    as well buy Winders.
>>>>>
>>>>>    At least with Linux there are MANY choices for desktops.
>>>>
>>>> It's the customization options of KDE that got me interested. You
>>>> can customize GNOME to an extent, but it's needlessly difficult
>>>> whereas KDE includes just about everything you would need
>>>> immediately. XFCE is even more customizable, but I find it to be
>>>> somewhat dated. Additionally, it is way too easy to break something
>>>> specifically because of how open it is to being modified by the user.
>>>
>>>    Well, I never try to mod it very much - so no probs.
>>>
>>>    Biggest issues revolve around kinda faulty detection
>>>    of the mousepad. Had to go kinda deep and weird to
>>>    help there. Were also a few brightness-default issues
>>>    with the display (but that was X-related, not so
>>>    much XFCE). Had these issues with several distros,
>>>    they don't seem to like laptops. Probs with HPs and
>>>    with some Dells also (including the latest Fedora).
>>>
>>>    Anyway, LXDE is what does it for me. "Dated" is
>>>    JUST GREAT in my aesthetic  :-)
>>
>> I used to not have a problem with things that were dated either since
>> they used less RAM and ended up being more responsive, but I started
>> to miss certain subtle additions in newer interfaces. With 32GB of
>> RAM, you stop being so anal about high memory usage too.
>
>
>   Maybe I'm from just too far back ... can't stand
>   wasting a byte or cycle for more than the basics :-)

I was the same way for a while, but it was mostly because I was using
outdated hardware. Once I had money and could afford to buy something
decent, I stopped caring so much.

>   Anyway, I don't like 'desktop integration' or eye
>   candy, so LXDE seems to be 'the basics' of a
>   bearable GUI. Some of the 'tiled' ones work, but
>   are just too ugly and clunky IMHO. Some die-hards
>   will disagree there ... and then there's the
>   terminal/scripts-only fascists ......
>
>   I remember when the i4004 was the most neat-o new
>   thing, lots of micro-controllers with BYTES of RAM.
>   Creates a mindset.

My first computer (TI994/A) had a whopping 16KB of RAM. I wonder if it
would have run Crysis.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
Telegram: @AndrzejMatuch
Zephyrus G14 GA401QM on Fedora 41
KDE supporting member

On 1/5/25 8:25 AM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
> On 2025-01-05 04:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 05/01/2025 07:54, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>> Germany had 3000 back then, and now has 5000 per million.
>>
>> My sister's German  ex-husband who probably supports AfD, said 'we
>> have now 50 professors of gender studies in Germany, and only two atom
>> scientists!'
>
> Now that Germans and Brits can no longer safely go to a Christmas
> celebration and have to worry about their wives being raped and their
> daughters groomed by gangs, I wonder if they _finally_ have the courage
> to admit that their multicultural experiment not only failed but is
> destroying their culture altogether.

Oh, they KNOW it by now fer-sure ... but are afraid
of being jailed for thought-crime if they dare say it.

A little voice from the grave is saying "TOLD ya so !" ...

IMHO, the entire govt is gonna have to implode before
any useful changes can be made. Maybe Chuck and Willie
can run it for a little while ? :-)

On 1/6/25 5:37 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
> On 2025-01-06 16:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of fresh
>>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With cooling
>>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in general,
>>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt. That's a
>>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>>
>>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and turn the
>>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the first time in
>>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never really being
>>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>>
>>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and Siberian
>>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely worse than
>>> Scotland
>>
>> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting tundra :-D
>
> There is soil underneath all of that, Chris.

The geologists say it'll be a nice place ... with a huge
long lake in the middle. Condos, hotels, speedboats, $$$ ...

I wonder what a square mile of now-glacier COSTS there ???

On 06/01/2025 21:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On 06/01/2025 19:06, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of fresh
>>>>> water. Obviously, this would result in people dying. With cooling
>>>>> though, there would be a decreased availability of food in general,
>>>>> so I don't see how one is worse than the other.
>>>>
>>>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt. That's a
>>>> fuck of a lot of fresh water
>>>
>>> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly
>>> inconvenienced by the world's warming could move there and turn the
>>> continent-like country into something inhabitable for the first time in
>>> thousands of years. I imagine that as a result of it never really being
>>> used for agriculture, that land is incredibly fertile.
>>>
>> Not wrong there. In fact huge areas of Canadian, Alaskan and Siberian
>> tundra would be really quite nice places to live. Scarcely worse than
>> Scotland
>
> Except for buildings and equipment sinking into the melting tundra :-D
>
Anyone who knows scotland will have the answer to that.

It's rock underneath innit?

And where it isn't, juts hang on a century first

--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 19:29:08 -0500, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> My first computer (TI994/A) had a whopping 16KB of RAM. I wonder if it
> would have run Crysis.

16 KB? Who could ever want more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_MCS-48

We did two handheld products, a pH meter and an ion concentration meter
with the 8749. Physically they were identical and used the output of a
Ross electrode to perform the measurement. The math was similar but there
wasn't room enough to squeeze both in.

It was fun, sort of like playing chess. I'm completely spoiled today when
I can load a whole MicroPython interpreter into a microprocessor and still
have plenty of room for the application.

On 1/6/25 5:49 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2025-01-05, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> We have achienved something no other species has done. Science.
>>
>> Someone once pointed out, though, that for all the great things
>> science can do, it can't make the sun shine brighter or the
>> rivers run faster.  If our consumption continues to increase,
>> sooner or later we'll hit the crunch.
>
> We can use things more effectively, we can build nuclear. In terms of
> power we have no problem out all. This is a solved problem and only
> requires political will.

We ARE very wasteful - even with known-limited
resources. There's mostly not enough money in
're-cycling' to make it worth it (except in
4th-world countries - oh reports are of a
really good gold-recovery chemistry lately)

How many neo magnets from old disk drives now
reside in the bottom of landfills ? Most of
those come from an ENEMY nation. I've seen pix
of what Africans can do with waste plastics on
a low budget (note, 4 parts sand to 1 part
old jugs is best for construction bricks, found
graphs somewhere). BUT, 1st world, the problems
and regs and bureaucracy ruin it all. Can't get
there from here.

Nuke plants are good (I still like 'pebble bed' and
apparently China is now into them). There's still a
waste-disposal issue alas, what to do with stuff
that's super-deadly for 99,000 years. Tectonics
are too slow to just bag it and drop it in an
ocean trench somewhere.

"Better" is gonna require a SENSIBLE mix of energy
technologies. No one thing can save us, but all
COMBINED as best suited per-region can.

And then there's the "expectations" issue ...
eight BILLION all demanding a luxury 1st-
world lifestyle they saw on TV. Even with
better tech I just don't think that's gonna
be possible for at least a century, maybe
two or three. This causes DISCONTENT and
lots of unpleasant POLITICS - followed by
things on fire.

And alas ... I don't see "AI" creating any kind
of nirvana - more like rendering half the pop
largely obsolete and crammed into horrible govt
tenements until they rot and die .

>>> Add to that the ability to plan long term, and there's nothing
>>> to fear.
>>
>> Given the scarcity of companies that can see past the next quarter,
>> I think there's quite a lot to fear.
>
> There are companies that are older than countries.

Yea, but they mostly chose "bullet-proof" lines of biz.

>>> We can even nudge asteroids out of the way, should it be necessary.
>>
>> Or not.  See the Netflix movie _Don't Look Up_.
>
> Sorry, forgot that source of eternal truth.

Don't think asteroid mining can make a profit, at
least not until there's something beyond Newtonian
propulsion - IF there's such a thing.

If you wanna be useful with asteroids, divert a bunch
of big icy ones towards a soft-crash into Mars. THEN
we'd have a spare planet.

>>> I'd argue, that we've actually far, far safer from changes in
>>> climate and our surroundings than we have ever been before.
>>
>> Well, the rich folk are, at least.
>
> You can become rich too! Remember the locust protein company we've been
> talking about. The idea is just sitting there for you to realize it! =D

They re-named rapeseed oil and call MSG "natural
flavor" and call Winders an operating system ... maybe
they can de-locust powdered bug goop :-)

On 1/6/25 1:35 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2025-01-06, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-01-05, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have achienved something no other species has done. Science.
>>>
>>> Someone once pointed out, though, that for all the great things
>>> science can do, it can't make the sun shine brighter or the
>>> rivers run faster. If our consumption continues to increase,
>>> sooner or later we'll hit the crunch.
>>
>> We can use things more effectively, we can build nuclear. In terms of
>> power we have no problem out all. This is a solved problem and only
>> requires political will.
>
> No amount of political will can solve the coming shortages, because
> that's not where the will is being applied. It's all going toward
> increasing our population beyond the ability of science to provide,
> and ensuring that technological advances will never catch up with
> ever-increasing demand. (Besides, shortages drive prices up, which
> is good for The Economy.)
>
>>>> Add to that the ability to plan long term, and there's nothing
>>>> to fear.
>>>
>>> Given the scarcity of companies that can see past the next quarter,
>>> I think there's quite a lot to fear.
>>
>> There are companies that are older than countries.
>
> And I'm sure a lot of them bumble along in their short-sighted way,
> depending on massive financial reserves to carry them through the
> downturns.
>
>>>> We can even nudge asteroids out of the way, should it be necessary.
>>>
>>> Or not. See the Netflix movie _Don't Look Up_.
>>
>> Sorry, forgot that source of eternal truth.
>
> Not eternal truth, perhaps, but way too plausible for comfort.
>
>>>> I'd argue, that we've actually far, far safer from changes in
>>>> climate and our surroundings than we have ever been before.
>>>
>>> Well, the rich folk are, at least.
>>
>> You can become rich too! Remember the locust protein company we've been
>> talking about. The idea is just sitting there for you to realize it! =D
>
> _We_ are the locusts. See my .sig.

Ummmmm ... you don't work in a secret govt bio-war
lab do you ?

In any case, as I said to another here, we now have
eight billion people all wanting to live the life
of a Kardashian ... 1st-world plus. CAN'T happen,
maybe not even with an extra century of tech. This
causes all sorts of dissatisfaction and politics
and chaos. May largely kill ourselves off before
the 'resources' run out.

It's a problem.

Know how to knap a flint spearhead ?

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 20:17:12 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 1/6/25 5:49 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-01-05, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have achienved something no other species has done. Science.
>>>
>>> Someone once pointed out, though, that for all the great things
>>> science can do, it can't make the sun shine brighter or the rivers run
>>> faster.  If our consumption continues to increase, sooner or later
>>> we'll hit the crunch.
>>
>> We can use things more effectively, we can build nuclear. In terms of
>> power we have no problem out all. This is a solved problem and only
>> requires political will.
>
> We ARE very wasteful - even with known-limited resources. There's
> mostly not enough money in 're-cycling' to make it worth it (except
> in 4th-world countries - oh reports are of a really good
> gold-recovery chemistry lately)

There are a few recycling projects that do make money and they don't
require government intervention. My information is from the '90s but
there were two lead acid battery operations in the LA area and it was
worth hauling junk batteries from Denver or further. The Kaiser aluminum
smelter in Spokane also pulled in crushed aluminum cans from all over the
west. The local pulp mill had cardboard hauled in but they shut down.
There must still be a market since the company that handles the garbage
has a separate dumpster for cardboard.

The oddest one was in Rancho Cucamonga. I hauled past the sell date beer
from Denver. They distilled it for industrial alcohol.

Plastic recycling is problematic as is glass. I've got a suspicion after
the people have their feel good moment separating the trash it still winds
up in the same landfill.

On 1/6/25 9:47 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 20:17:12 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/25 5:49 AM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2025-01-05, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We have achienved something no other species has done. Science.
>>>>
>>>> Someone once pointed out, though, that for all the great things
>>>> science can do, it can't make the sun shine brighter or the rivers run
>>>> faster.  If our consumption continues to increase, sooner or later
>>>> we'll hit the crunch.
>>>
>>> We can use things more effectively, we can build nuclear. In terms of
>>> power we have no problem out all. This is a solved problem and only
>>> requires political will.
>>
>> We ARE very wasteful - even with known-limited resources. There's
>> mostly not enough money in 're-cycling' to make it worth it (except
>> in 4th-world countries - oh reports are of a really good
>> gold-recovery chemistry lately)
>
> There are a few recycling projects that do make money and they don't
> require government intervention. My information is from the '90s but
> there were two lead acid battery operations in the LA area and it was
> worth hauling junk batteries from Denver or further. The Kaiser aluminum
> smelter in Spokane also pulled in crushed aluminum cans from all over the
> west. The local pulp mill had cardboard hauled in but they shut down.
> There must still be a market since the company that handles the garbage
> has a separate dumpster for cardboard.
>
> The oddest one was in Rancho Cucamonga. I hauled past the sell date beer
> from Denver. They distilled it for industrial alcohol.
>
> Plastic recycling is problematic as is glass. I've got a suspicion after
> the people have their feel good moment separating the trash it still winds
> up in the same landfill.

I've seen many news reports of just that.

Re-cycling, as I implied, is a profit/loss thing.
Gotta be able to make at least a little money
on it or ...

Plastic IS a problem, mostly because there are SO
many kinds. Glass seems more straight-up, but again
I can see that the heat/stuff required to re-melt
it aren't much from what it takes to make new glass.

The stale beer -> ethanol thing is interesting.

Cardboard ... may not REALLY be a market, just
greenie pols trying to score points. However it
might be good for lawn mulch or something similar.
Hmmm ... new house, put a couple inches of ground
cardboard down an then cover it with a few inches
of good dirt. Oughtta hold lots of moisture.
Structural uses ... the moment you crease the stuff
it's lost mechanical strength, can't even soak it
in glue/resin and make shelving. Just burn it at
a power plant .......

Styrofoam is a huge bugaboo. High volume with
low mass. Can't really melt it properly. CAN
dissolve it in some hydrocarbons and get a
kind of degraded styrene goop, but I'm not sure
what that's good for.

Despite high visibility, maybe these things are
not the most vital resources to re-cycle ???
Waste of 'rare earths' is concerning. Once
diluted across 100,000 landfills we're NOT
gonna get 'em back. Hell, how much easy boron
is there ... almost all goes down a million
washer drains ......

EVENTUALLY there may be tech for capturing such
elements at-site, or even mining landfills for
0.00000001% dilutions. But not anytime soon.

On 1/5/25 7:19 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:35:14 +0100, D wrote:
>>
>>> This is very beautiful! I should get an NRA hat as well to give myself
>>> an option for when the MAGA hat is not quite right.
>>
>> Join and you get trinkets. I've got a couple of the hats, proudly made in
>> China by 11 year old slaves. I've very mixed feelings about the NRA and
>> have dropped my membership a couple of times. I was overjoyed when that
>> greasy bastard LaPierre got booted. However it does support
>> legislation to
>> preserve rights.
>
> Just the fact that a swedish socialist might give me the evil eye is
> enough for me to get an NRA hat! ;)

Heh, heh ... I understand :-)

It IS a 'civil-rights organization'.

Alas, even post-LaPierre (a real shit), that
hat and membership card may be too politically
dangerous at this point. Ain't gonna be MAGA
forever (GOP thinks it has four years to coast)
and soon enough the ultra-left will regain power.

Being NRA means you're an Enemy Of The People,
a terrorist, a 'threat to democracy', a maniac.
They'll push that and then send midnight raiders
to your house to 'save America' the way Vlad
disappears 'dissidents'.

NRA offers some perks - but not a squad of high-
powered lawyers to deal with and un-do this kind
of political bullshit this side of 20 years.

SO ... I'd suggest 'off book' donations - an
anonymous money order or such to the org. May
need a new org with a neutral name.

A return to a more sensible/tolerant America ?
No longer sure that's possible. We've kinda
drifted into the 3rd-world mentality of
dictators, czars, warlords, presidents-
for life and ayatollah-substututes. Hard to
come back from that. Not everything lost can
be regained.

It'd take a real, prolonged, space-alien
invasion. Don't think the Jersey Drones
are gonna do it.

On 2025-01-07, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

> On 1/6/25 1:35 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> _We_ are the locusts. See my .sig.
>
> Ummmmm ... you don't work in a secret govt bio-war
> lab do you ?

No, I just do a little basic math.

> In any case, as I said to another here, we now have
> eight billion people

.... and counting ...

> all wanting to live the life
> of a Kardashian ... 1st-world plus. CAN'T happen,
> maybe not even with an extra century of tech. This
> causes all sorts of dissatisfaction and politics
> and chaos. May largely kill ourselves off before
> the 'resources' run out.
>
> It's a problem.
>
> Know how to knap a flint spearhead ?

I could probably learn. I didn't get that ability
bred out of me.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On 2025-01-07, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 19:29:08 -0500, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> My first computer (TI994/A) had a whopping 16KB of RAM. I wonder if it
>> would have run Crysis.
>
> 16 KB? Who could ever want more.

My first job was in a small service bureau running a Univac 9300
(their answer to the IBM 360/20). It had 16K of memory, and no
disks or tapes - just cards. Yet we ran accounts receivables,
general ledgers, payrolls, etc. for all sorts of companies that were
too small to afford even a computer like ours (250K 1970 dollars).

Later we added disks and expanded the memory to 32K. At first
we didn't know what to do with all that space - although we soon
figured it out.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 22:23:26 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> Cardboard ... may not REALLY be a market, just greenie pols trying to
> score points. However it might be good for lawn mulch or something
> similar. Hmmm ... new house, put a couple inches of ground cardboard
> down an then cover it with a few inches of good dirt. Oughtta hold
> lots of moisture. Structural uses ... the moment you crease the stuff
> it's lost mechanical strength, can't even soak it in glue/resin and
> make shelving. Just burn it at a power plant .......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCPeElrhbIQ

https://missoulacountyvoice.com/smurfit-stone-mill-site-cleanup

The second link is the local pulp mill which is now a SuperFund site.
There was a plan to do something with the area but the settling ponds
problem put it on hold. Fish & Game advises people to not eat the fish
downstream.

Back in the '90s I hauled in cardboard like shown in the video from as far
away as Calgary. I also hauled chips a couple of times. That scrap from
the sawmill planers. You have to level the load and tarp it which meant
wading through the chips like a gerbil. At least they were clean and
smelled good. I also hauled the big rolls out, often to another Stone
plant in Tracy CA.

I don't know what proportion of scrap cardboard, chips, and trees that
weren't good enough for the sawmills they used but there is a real market
for cardboard.

> Styrofoam is a huge bugaboo. High volume with low mass. Can't really
> melt it properly. CAN dissolve it in some hydrocarbons and get a kind
> of degraded styrene goop, but I'm not sure what that's good for.

You can melt polystyrene easily but the the trash is contaminated. In the
early '80s I worked for SweetHeart's injection molding operation in
Somerville MA. They made consumer foam dinnerware and also McDonald's foam
clamshells. The nice thing about thermoplastics versus thermosets is you
can reuse the scrap. McDonald's was very picky and specified a particular
shade of beige. Getting the right color assumed that there would be a
certain amount of scrap that would be ground and recycled. If everything
was running perfectly there wouldn't be enough scrap and the clamshells
made with virgin crystal styrene weren't the right shade.

I think they use pentane for the blowing agent now but back then it was
Freon-12, literally in railcar quantities. Damn the ozone layer, full
speed ahead. The job had one advantage. Another part of the factory made
both sugar and cake ice cream cones. When I was bored, which was most of
the time, I would wander over and grab some sugar cones hot off the line.

On 07/01/2025 01:17, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> There's still a
>   waste-disposal issue alas, what to do with stuff
>   that's super-deadly for 99,000 years.

Don't be silly, If its super deadly it wont be around 99,000 years.,
Mostly the super deadly is gone in a week

....and how long will lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, cadmium,
arsenic and beryllium last?

Forever mate, But you dont seem upset about those.

--
“People believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, one’s
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
one’s suitability to be taken seriously.”

Paul Krugman

On 07/01/2025 02:47, rbowman wrote:
> There are a few recycling projects that do make money and they don't
> require government intervention. My information is from the '90s but
> there were two lead acid battery operations in the LA area and it was
> worth hauling junk batteries from Denver or further.

I visited a lead recycling plant in France. It was part of a lead
smelting operation. It was dripping sulphuric acid. They took car
batteries and mashed them up and somehow fed them back into the ore
processing chain.

>The Kaiser aluminum
> smelter in Spokane also pulled in crushed aluminum cans from all over the
> west. The local pulp mill had cardboard hauled in but they shut down.
> There must still be a market since the company that handles the garbage
> has a separate dumpster for cardboard.
>
> The oddest one was in Rancho Cucamonga. I hauled past the sell date beer
> from Denver. They distilled it for industrial alcohol.
>
Great idea!

> Plastic recycling is problematic as is glass. I've got a suspicion after
> the people have their feel good moment separating the trash it still winds
> up in the same landfill.

The best way is to burn it for power and heat generation. If the
temperature is high enough all the nasties like dioxins break down and
flue scrubbers take out anything that isn't CO2 or water...

Or you can depolymerise it for making 'fossil fuel'.

In fact feeding plastics into a nuclear reactor would result in plenty
of combustible gases being produced.

It can all be done. The problem is cost. E.g. take grinding glass into
sand. Its way more expensive than digging up sand that nature has
already ground...In reality we ought to simply tip glass into the sea,
and let that turn it into pebbles and sand over a century or so...but
that's too simple even for Greens.

If we had shitloads of surplus heat and electricity from nuclear
reactors that was almost free, many of these expensive processes would
become cheap.

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 07/01/2025 01:38, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> In any case, as I said to another here, we now have
>   eight billion people all wanting to live the life
>   of a Kardashian ... 1st-world plus. CAN'T happen,
>   maybe not even with an extra century of tech. This
>   causes all sorts of dissatisfaction and politics
>   and chaos. May largely kill ourselves off before
>   the 'resources' run out.
>
>   It's a problem.
>
>   Know how to knap a flint spearhead ?

Just about. Might take a few months though

A lot of basic technology isn't hard to implement once you have the
right idea.
Spinning weaving and sewing are easy enough as is knitting etc.
Bows and arrows potters wheels and pole lathes are all easily built.

Knowing that iron ore exists and can be smelted with charcoal and a
bellows takes you past the Bronze age quickly.

As does basic knowledge of fertilisers and animal husbandry.

Of course there wont be enough to keep millennial snowflakes alive whose
only skill is tapping a touchscreen.

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 06/01/2025 10:50, D wrote:
>> unless they live off government handouts, in which case they are really
>> just a branch of government.
>
> No. Government is just another branch of the companies.

Depends on the country. I guarantee you that the government calls the
shots in sweden. In the US, I'm not so sure, but then, the US is not a
socialist as sweden.

> It's called 'state capture' or 'crony capitalism'
>
> The more overtly socialist and 'caring' the government is, the easier is it
> to bend its motives towards state sponsored profit.
>
> Not a single windfarm or solar farm has been built without massive state
> incentives.

This is the truth!

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> On 2025-01-05 14:57, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025, TJ wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-01-04 16:50, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 10:58:09 -0500, TJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know much about sea level changes. I live about 250 miles from
>>>>> the sea, so I don't have to deal with it. But that doesn't mean I can
>>>>> deny the changes in the climate right here where I live.
>>>>
>>>> I live at around 3000', so no problem. However 13,000 years ago the whole
>>>> area was the bottom of a lake whose shoreline was at 4200'. Things
>>>> change.
>>>
>>> I'm closer to 1500', with rolling drumlins left behind by glaciers and
>>> it's similar here. I've been told since childhood that our area used to be
>>> under an "inland sea." There are tons of fossils of sea life around,
>>> shellfish, trilobites, and the like, but I couldn't say for sure they
>>> weren't imported by those glaciers from somewhere else.
>>>
>>> One thing, anyway. If the climatologists are correct, then humans are to
>>> be congratulated. Through global cooperation and diligent effort, we have
>>> successfully staved off the Ice Age that was predicted in the 1970s to be
>>> headed our way.
>>>
>>> TJ
>>
>> Cooling is what we should all fear. Warming, if anything, has always been
>> correlated with civilizational advance and prosperity.
>
> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of fresh water.
> Obviously, this would result in people dying. With cooling though, there
> would be a decreased availability of food in general, so I don't see how one
> is worse than the other.

Cooling kills 10x the people than warming. That is how cooling is worse
than warming. As for lack of water, desalination exists and works well.
Desalination can be combined excellently, with solar power to drive down
cost.

It is being used with great success on the swedish island of Gotland, to
mitigate water shortage.

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2025-01-06, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 5 Jan 2025, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-01-05, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We have achienved something no other species has done. Science.
>>>
>>> Someone once pointed out, though, that for all the great things
>>> science can do, it can't make the sun shine brighter or the
>>> rivers run faster. If our consumption continues to increase,
>>> sooner or later we'll hit the crunch.
>>
>> We can use things more effectively, we can build nuclear. In terms of
>> power we have no problem out all. This is a solved problem and only
>> requires political will.
>
> No amount of political will can solve the coming shortages, because
> that's not where the will is being applied. It's all going toward

This is incorrect. Shortages, and lack of political will, makes for
excellent opportunities for political entrepreneurs.

> increasing our population beyond the ability of science to provide,
> and ensuring that technological advances will never catch up with
> ever-increasing demand. (Besides, shortages drive prices up, which
> is good for The Economy.)

This has been said since at least the 1800s, and has been equally wrong
every single time. We have not even started to farm the seas and space.
There are enormous areas available for farming on the planet, limitless
energy, and NASA has proven that we're seeing global greening. Do not
worry about increasing population.

In fact, if anything, population is stagnating. So throw away the
mainstream media and enjoy life. We've never had it better, and we'll have
it better still! =)

>>>> Add to that the ability to plan long term, and there's nothing
>>>> to fear.
>>>
>>> Given the scarcity of companies that can see past the next quarter,
>>> I think there's quite a lot to fear.
>>
>> There are companies that are older than countries.
>
> And I'm sure a lot of them bumble along in their short-sighted way,
> depending on massive financial reserves to carry them through the
> downturns.

Maybe, maybe not.

>>>> We can even nudge asteroids out of the way, should it be necessary.
>>>
>>> Or not. See the Netflix movie _Don't Look Up_.
>>
>> Sorry, forgot that source of eternal truth.
>
> Not eternal truth, perhaps, but way too plausible for comfort.
>
>>>> I'd argue, that we've actually far, far safer from changes in
>>>> climate and our surroundings than we have ever been before.
>>>
>>> Well, the rich folk are, at least.
>>
>> You can become rich too! Remember the locust protein company we've been
>> talking about. The idea is just sitting there for you to realize it! =D
>
> _We_ are the locusts. See my .sig.

I disagree.

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> On 2025-01-06 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 06/01/2025 13:49, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>> The way they sell it, warming means a lesser availability of fresh water.
>>> Obviously, this would result in people dying. With cooling though, there
>>> would be a decreased availability of food in general, so I don't see how
>>> one is worse than the other.
>>
>> Except the narrative says that all of greenland will melt. That's a fuck of
>> a lot of fresh water
>
> If all of Greenland will melt, the people who are suddenly inconvenienced by
> the world's warming could move there and turn the continent-like country into
> something inhabitable for the first time in thousands of years. I imagine
> that as a result of it never really being used for agriculture, that land is
> incredibly fertile.

As a bonus, that would serve as an excellent example of adapting to the
environment, which has been a recipe for success for atleast 10000 years!
Much better than, say, trying to control the global weather.