Earth's Carrying Capacity

Wim Lewis wrote:
In article ,
Ian St. John wrote:
Really? Can you explain why it is never used for clothing then?

Uh....? I have several items of linen clothing. I like it because it
lets air through more readily than cotton or silk; on a hot day, this
easily makes the difference between being comfortable or not. And it
would be boring if everything had the same cottony texture. I don't
think I'd like linen underwear, though.

I don't actually remember how expensive they were, but IIRC the
shirts were comparable to cotton shirts of the same general style
and quality in the same store.

I'm guessing that the expense of "fine linen tablecloths" has more to
do with the "fine" than with the "linen".

No, linen really is expensive. Cheap linen anything is
basically non-existent.

Anywho, Cotton's legendary "breathability" is overrated.
Modern synthetics like CoolMax, polypropylene, DryFIT,
polyester microfibers, etc. have superior performance at
decent price points. Synthetics are not as fashionable
though, I guess.

"Paul F Austin" wrote ...
Paul F Austin wrote:
"Tim McDaniel" wrote
Psalm 110 wrote:
The way I was taught was if somebody made themselve obnoxious you
politely reply "please insert a corncob up your anus, thank you."

Miss Manners would note that it is impossible to politely say
"Please insert a corncob up your anus, thank you", except to people
who would not mind inserting a corncob.

I think the phrase you're looking for is "**** you very much." When
said with an uctuous tone and a big simpering smile you get a couple
of seconds delay before the content of the message unpacks.

There's also "Thank you very little".

My favourite is $B$"$j$,$H$&$4$6$$$^$;$s(B

"Jim Logajan" wrote ...
http://www.incompetech.com/gallimaufry/numbers.html

"Eleventy-five percent of statistics are made up on the spot."

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote ...
"Rand Simberg" wrote ...
Yes, that is exactly the kind of pointless stupid nitpicking to which I
was referring. This is my last post on the subject.

About time.

Odd. I was expecting that sentence to finish
"Yes, that is exactly the kind of pointless stupid nitpicking in which
I specialise."

"Paul F Austin" writes:

"Tim McDaniel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul F Austin wrote:

"Tim McDaniel" wrote in message
...
Psalm 110 wrote:
The way I was taught was if somebody made themselve obnoxious you
politely reply "please insert a corncob up your anus, thank you."

Miss Manners would note that it is impossible to politely say
"Please insert a corncob up your anus, thank you", except to people
who would not mind inserting a corncob.

I think the phrase you're looking for is "**** you very much." When
said with an uctuous tone and a big simpering smile you get a couple
of seconds delay before the content of the message unpacks.

No, I'm afraid that phrase doesn't work either in terms of being
polite.

It is possible to be clever and occasionally even cutting or vicious
while still remaining polite, but crude words don't do it.
More than ten points for style in this case.

There's also "Thank you very little".

"Spank you, spank you very much".

--
Tapio Erola (No mail to please!)

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
--Voltaire

G EddieA95 wrote:
Why not? If it doesn't violate laws of physics, then you can get around it.

Unless you start with a system that is resistant to upgrading or
re-engineering, like the human body.

Resistant, yes.
However...
There have been successes in changing limited portions of the DNA of
some people, only some half-century after DNA was discovered.
A fairly large number of aging diseases could be repaired by simply
replacing all the DNA in the human body with fresh copies.
(there are of course issues)

All cancers, ...

Robert Carnegie wrote in message ...

I don't recall if you're playing this round from newsgroup
rec.arts.sf.written, as I am, but we just had a discussion about
how in the future every citizen will own some robots, and none of
us humans will have jobs, but instead of going out to work
ourselves, the robots will go out to work and we stay home while
they earn for us. You can probably figure why this might not work.
I forget if I specifically suggested _Terminator_ movies as
disproof.

In the end, there will only be a network of computers that runs some
kind of financial market. All that hardware and wetware of today is
just too expensive and inefficient. I would guess, the computers would
speculate on the occurences of certain astronomical events.

Karl M. Syring

"James Nicoll" wrote in message
...

This brane is all used up: let's find a new one!

You're just stringing us along.


--
"This has been fascinating but I need to shoot you into space now."

Karl M. Syring wrote:

In the end, there will only be a network of computers that runs some
kind of financial market. All that hardware and wetware of today is
just too expensive and inefficient. I would guess, the computers would
speculate on the occurences of certain astronomical events.

http://www.angryflower.com/termin.gif

Paul

"G EddieA95" wrote in message
...
Despite all of the hype, the maximum endurance of human life has not
substantially increased in modern times.

Yes, and no. While the absolute maximum hasn't increased much, the
average has increased vastly.

True, but the promise was not "Allowing more of you to live to be 90, with
the
associated dried-out muscles and faded mind of that age." It was
decades-long
youth, in a life stretching well over the century mark.

Look up an article in SciAm from about 3 years ago.

But in general folks living longer live better. i.e. senior citizens in
their 60s and 70s are in far better physical shape today than folks in their
60s and 70s a generation or two ago.


The promise of life-extension has not even approached.