Does that make sense? The logic is that woolly mammoths would... am I reading this right? Tamp down the permafrost? Like, they'd literally just squish the ground on top of it to compact it and insulate the permafrost from rising temperatures? And they'd knock over trees... that's... that's the plan?
EDIT: Apparently, yes, that is seriously the idea. But the scale required to make a difference, and the cost to get to that scale boggles my mind. You can't just whip up one pack of mammoths and call it a success...
While the scale required is huge, mammoths are just one of the players here. I am not sure if you have heard of pleistocene park were they have started with horse, karibou, sheep, yak and a few others and already seen some effects. All those animals are seeking plants in some form or the other in the winter and by doing so move the snow cover that is insulating the permafrost, letting the cold seek deeper into it (or rather letting the warmth diffuse out). Mammoths are a key species as they as larger mammals are more prone to trampel down larger vegetation like trees to create the ecosystem all together.
> But the scale required to make a difference, and the cost to get to that scale boggles my mind. You can't just whip up one pack of mammoths and call it a success...
I assume the idea is that if you can create your big furry von Neumann machines correctly in the first place, you only need to whip up one pack of mammoths and it will indeed then be a success eventually.
What we are actually talking about is you putting your valuables in a safe within your alarmed house and a professional thief breaking in and stealing it. Because the thief previously worked at the safe company and implemented a backdoor in the design.
What we're actually talking about, if we consider security evaluations and ratings, is to...
1. Put valuables in a low-rated safe whose door opener is network accessible and itself low-rated.
2. Whose alarms suck at identifying and responding to actual breaches by even the most common methods.
3. A thief breaking in who uses the most common methods that the safemaker or company didn't try to stop. They did spend a fortune on unrelated stuff.
4. Various designs and implementations that weren't using methods that often prevent or detect backdoor attempts in favor of methods that let backdoors slip through.
Also, this is a company that makes billions in profits a year. They have the money to both develop and build highly-secure systems, including safes. They keep not doing that or not using what high-security they build. They keep using low-security stuff year after year after year. They could defend against those problems by doing more of what works and not using low-rated, often-vulnerable stuff for protecting secrets. Just a hunch on my part. ;)
Morally? No. It's the thief's fault, and the thief's fault only.
But if you know that people steal packages off of porches in your neighborhood, and you leave a package out there for weeks, you're at least being pretty unwise. You're not morally at fault, but pragmatically, yes, you kind of are.
[Edit: That is, your actions are not well-suited for the kind of world that we actually live in, and that you know that we live in.]
Not your fault in a moral sense, but it certainly is in a causal sense.
You could have set up a different causal chain that would have prevented the theft. Of course that doesn't mean that society can't blame (and punish) the thief.
No they don’t, their tenants pay the property tax. I own a rental property in New Zealand (not out of choice, long story) and the rates are paid from the rent. I don’t chuck in the extra $120/month from my other income.
CapitolOne! You can open an accounts online, no fees and you get interest on your balance. I have more than 20 accounts with them for everything from saving for vacation to saving for unexpected pet expenses.
We've been having problem with packages stink with cigarette smell to the point that we have to open the packages outside of the house and the wash our hands.
reply