Area54

No problems. Back on OP my main concern with his outline plan is that he has no concept of what implementing it would involve. Ken Fabian has pointed out some of the many problems that could be created by such a scheme. My mention of the costs of planning and modelling related, in part, to the cost of anticipating those problems and determining a work around, or corrective action, (or large payment to compensate those whose local ecology gets well and truly screwed.) Raider, global warming is a complex issue and it is rare that complex issues have simple solutions. The Gordian Knot approach rarely works outside of myth. Your proposal is one that is worthy of consideration, but I suggest it won't cut the mustard on a political platform. Keep thinking, but try harder at attacking your own ideas.

Um, yes. Precisely the point I was making. Raider was ignoring this facet of funding completely, as he implicitly acknowledged in his repsonse. He was only proposing funding after the technology was developed, not as well as. Thus I described his approach as partially bass ackward, not fully bass ackward. Raider had no difficulty correctly discerning my meaning. If you explain why you didn't I can avoid such ambiguity in future.

I've tried, honestly I have, not to post this, but my resistance is weak. Every time I see beecee's Chasing Ice post I hear a voice-over artist, in the resonant tones of one promoting the latest blockbuster movie: And now, the flim they said couldn't be made, the canvas to vast even for the silver screen, the inspiring story of one man's dedicated quest, against all the odds, to find the perfect Scotch on the rocks, we bring you, "Chasing Ice".

This is ambiguous. As written, you imply that today's nuclear weapons are fission devices. They are not. They are fusion devices with a fission trigger. There is enough nonesnse in the OP without others adding to the confusion.

That's pretty much the conclusion we are, sadly, arriving at on this side of the pond. At least our tousle haired crazy, aka Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary, is amusing in his bumbling way and we don't let him anywhere near the button.

I'll respond to your entire post, rather than item by item. I was aware of your youth. I'm betting on you being able to take the criticism I shall direct your way. You can't make the investment now! So what? Politicians in office are managers. Managers don't do anything. They cause things to be done. You don't need to make the investment now, you need to argue the case for making the investment now. It doesn't matter who you argue it with, you are practicing the argument. You need to learn to read what people write. I carefully phrased my statement thus " Right there, in the second sentence, I agreed that your $1 billion might get the genetic engineering done. But the full program including modellling, etc would take vastly more. Yes, I know it is a politician's trick to answer the question that they want to answer, not the one that was asked. Do you want to distinguish yourself from rank and file politcos? Then listen to what people actually ask or state, then answer, or address that. If you can't estimate the cost then you don't have a plan, you don't have a vision, you don't have a dream. You have a brain fart and they stink worse than the other kind.

That is about the spin I would have put on it, though my version would have been more elegant. What that means is that your OP had these characteristics: Lacked in clarity Incomplete Ambiguous Moreover you failed to recognise that the investment would best be made now to take genetic engineering rapidly to the point where your "grand vision" can be implemented. I doubt you have any idea, to the nearest 100 billion, how much this program would actually take. Your $1 billion is laughable for the full program. It might cover GE development, but planning, modelling, implementing, monitoring, etc. would be vastly greater. You've indicated that may run for political office one day. I'm serving you notice that henceforth I shall attack vigorously and often brutally each of your posts that lack coherence, concision, clarity or intent. We have enough bumbleheads in politics already. We don't need one more.

I don't recognise your forum name. I have no idea what you were suspended for, though with a year's suspension it must have been thought serious. I for one will be viewing your posts without any baggage attached. This first one is first rate. If you maintain that attitude I think your hopes would be realised. P.S. If it turns out that I debated heatedly with you and provoked the "indecent behaviour" then I hope you will overlook that.

I am not an econmist, nor a research scientist, but you seem to have things at least partially bass ackwards. You plan to have the govt. invest in R&D to genetically engineer these plants after the "technology is there". Just make sure, when you run, no one ever realises you posted such a careless thought*. *I say careless, because I could spin a response, on your behalf, that would make you look insightful and me like a pedantic fool. But do you really want to rely on spindoctors. (Note that the alternative to careless writing, which betokens careless thinking, is that you are just not very bright. I recommend you go for the careless option.)

Since I don't live in the US this particular missile is not my direct problem. If I were living in the US I would have no means of disarming it, so I would seek shelter. I assume P,.S. is short for Pure Shit. If you seriously mean that, please provide valid citations, or a very detailed argument to supporrt the assertion. Containment field? Right. Sure. I think, overall, you have your wires crossed.

I suspect the key to the character of the book lies in it's title - Popular Psychology. If you consult the prospectus of any well regarded university psychology department you will find they cover many branches of psychology. I doubt popular psychology is one of them. I interpret Popular in this context to be equivalent to - "what I half understood from a History World documentary", "what I gathered from watching some of the CIS programs", "well it's Skinner and Freud and Jung and all those guys, isn't it?" etc. "Here's another crazy idea I have because I couldn't be bothered to do some serious study", "my uncle's bipolar so I understand these things". But that's all suspicion and the book may be the best thing since sliced avocado.

While what you say is generally true, it is my understanding that many ecologists focus on a very narrow topic, at least initially. Thus, by tackling the problem piecemeal, it becomes manageable. I agree that challenges must exist when one attempts to synthesise data to create a larger picture, but huge strides have been made in dealing with Big Data. Early days - Exciting Times.

Some of the reactions to criticism by OPs in the Speculation subforum suggest otherwise.

It might work as a Conditional Formatting function. I'm checking it out now. Will the numbers in the two columns always be different? Will you require more than two columns? Tried that as a two part approach. In cell formula to set the correct text. That, obviously, works. Can't get the colour match though. I'll try some more. This matches a problem I was seeking a solution to a while back. I'm convinced that - sooner or later - almost anything is possible in Excel. Ah! Got it. This solves the problem as I understand it. Step 1: In colum 1, the text column, add this forumula, assuming this is cell A1: =IF(B1>C1,"Green","Red") Step 2: Copy down the column Step 3: Select all active cells in column A. Step 4: Go to Conditional Formating, Choose "New Rule"; "Format Only Cells that Contain"; Set this to "Green", then select Format, Patterns and choose a green shade. Step 5: Repeat Step 4 for Red. If you have more columns the coding becomes more tiresome, but the logic will work. Hope that helps.

I acknowledge that science and engineering are not the same, but there is overlap. A few years ago I had sourced an alternative wear component on a piece of equipment we made. My then boss wanted to know, naturally, if it was better than our existing component. I conducted a series of tests and reported back that there was no discernible difference in terms of either performance or cost. His response "One of them must be better. Which one is it?" I stuck my ground. He stuck to his position, so finally I slid a coin across his desk and said "Toss that to decide." The unspoken words were "After all, you are obviously a tosser." Some people cannot function without certainty, real or imagined.

I am not convinced that it only infects humans, but if so this is because the smallpox virus evolved to function in human hosts.

If it were to work, it is likely the name would be conveninenlty shortened to AF drive. Future generations of the general public might mistakenly believe this stood for Awfully Fast.

You are most welcome. While looking for the details I did notice a host of items on YouTube. I have no idea of their quality, but a minute or two of viewing should give you a good measure. Here are a handful that caught my eye: The Ordovician Age A contrasting pair: Fireball Earth - The Permian Extinction and Snowball Earth - The Permian Extinction Colliding Continents

"The ashes of Professor Stephen Hawking will be interred next to the grave of Sir Isaac Newton at Westminster Abbey, it has been revealed" From this item. It would have been a travesty if this were not the case (family, or personal wishes excepted).

Do you intend to endlessly vomit your uniformed incredulity in post after post, or do you actually want to resolve some of your uncertainty. For the second time I ask for a response to this post. I would be obliged if you would do so.

A google search for Big Bang, which I assume you would have conducted (if not, why not?), should have returned items that mentioned the Big Bounce. There is no evidence for this that I am aware of, but it is not precluded by current theory.

So if some of them could live 5000 days they would be enormous. That would make a kraken good tale!

Oops. I omitted to include the link.

I see. Thank you. I think I prefer my misinterpretation.

On the BBC the following series are well worth viewing. They will be periodically available on BBC i-player, but there should also be DVDs for purchase. Men of Rock - 3 part series " Geologist Iain Stewart retraces the steps of a band of maverick pioneers who made ground-breaking discoveries in the landscape of Scotland about how our planet works." Rise of the Continents - 4 part series " Professor Iain Stewart reveals how our iconic continents were created, and how their tumultuous past has shaped our life today. " and somewhat older, though I recall it as being good. Earth Story - 8 parts - a 1998 documentary presented by Aubrey Manning. May be available on i-tunes. Edit: I'm nost sure what you meant by High Quality. This item on "How Britain Became an Island" is high quality in terms of the research technique and what it revealed, but is low quality in terms of production values. I found it fascinating.