Coral reefs are indeed very old. The timing I referenced in my post was ~8000 years ago (feel free to read the scientific paper I sourced) and ~115000 years ago.
Apparently coral reefs have no problem surviving warmer temperatures than what we have now.
It was warmer than now during the early parts of this interglacial (source: Marcott et.al 2013). Also, the previous interglacial (the Eemian) was warmer than ours.
“We did this calculation; if all the ice in the world melted—Greenland, Arctic, Antarctic, everything—and then we had the world's largest recorded tsunami right in front of the seed vault. So, very high sea levels and the worlds largest Tsunami. What would happen to the seed vault?” Fowler says. “We found that the seed vault was somewhere between a five and seven story building above that point. It might not help the road leading up to the seed vault, but the seeds themselves would be ok."
The designers knew the difference between "hottest year ever _recorded_" (that is, within the last few hundred years) and the hottest years _ever_. The arctic has been a lot warmer than now during _this_ interglacial (source: Marcott et.al 2013) - not to mention the previous interglacial, the Eemian.
The fact-checkers seem to agree with Trump regarding what the MIT study claimed.
According to John Reilly, who co-directs the Joint Program on Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT, the Paris agreement would reduce global temperature by two-tenths of one degree Celsius compared with earlier climate treaties.
I'm sorry, but the scientific method cares little for nationality;)
During the Holocene Climatic Optimum it's likely there was no or little summer sea ice in the arctic. I.e, we likely didn't have as cold winters as we've had recently.
Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day conditions.
(Please feel free to counter my science-based posts with links to scientific research articles rather than just claiming that it's "nonsense" based on your own personal views)
The rate of temperature change is according to climate scientists the fastest we ever had on the planet.
I'm sure you can find scientists (persons) saying that, but it's not what the science (as created by following the scientific method) is saying. Or rather, barring so-called catastrophes (meteor impacts, maybe basalt flooding etc) it's simply unknowable. We do not have proxies of enough resolution to know. However, even if we use the best we have, we find sudden temperature changes to be common.
"Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades."
My point was not about "nitpicking" about insects. I simply pointed out that your original statement cannot be true. The warming we've seen since the coldest part of the whole Holocene (i.e, since about a few hundred years back) is not exceptional for the Holocene (see previous post for scientific reference) and thus cannot be responsible for a demise of insects.
Please let us know your views on PoS vs PoW - and what Ethereum will decide to use at some point. Also, please explain how it will solve scaling issues since it's more wasteful with block data than Bitcoin.
(Not knowing how to secure the blockchain should be a showstopper, but alas... )
During the Holocene it was basically everywhere in Europe colder than it is right now
We're in the Holocene, right now. However, during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Bronze Age Warm period it was warmer than now in Europe. Additionally, during the Holocene Climatic Optimum it was warmer, globally, than now:
Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history.
source: Marcott et.al 2013
The rate of temperature change now does not surpass previous periods, during which insects had no problems surviving.
Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times, and may have created difficulties or opportunities (e.g., the possibility of crossing exposed land bridges, before sea level could rise)
source: Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary (Adams, Maslin, Thomas)
Now tell me, since everything above is known and non-disputed climate science, why do you believe differently?
(And which "earth ages" have I "mixed up" specifically?)
My point was simple: Your anecdote does not constitute a valid hypothesis, considering northern Europe specifically is not warm compared to several other periods during the Holocene.
You're absolutely correct. During the Medieval Warm Period (or the earlier Roman and Bronze Age equivalents, not to mention the Holocene Climatic Optimum) there were no insects anywhere in Europe.
40k and 90k would be in the middle of a glaciation stage. 130k however seems to be within the Eemian, the warmer interglacial before ours. Humanoids would likely have been expanding their reach during that time.
I think your inability to point out any of the things I asked for, which would've been valid criticism of the article/subject in question, ends the thread nicely.
Really? I've done public presentations on it since 2010. In what way do you believe Kim Dotcom's described venture wouldn't work completely within the Bitcoin network? Please be specific as to how it applies to what's described in this article.
I am?:) We have no unemployment in the tech sector and we are screaming for qualified personnel. Neither do we have any issues with schedules and budget. Maybe you're talking about a completely different country, not Sweden.
If you search really hard you might be able to find a Swede or two that aren't fluent in English. Otherwise, don't bother learning it. You'll get around perfectly fine in English throughout society.
(Some of my employees who have immigrated do take the time to learn Swedish, but I'm hoping that's because they have long term plans.. )
You can be hired under the concept of "prövotid" (probation), but many workplaces do not use that, especially in sectors where we have a lack of qualified personnel like in tech.
(It's not really fired, then, either. It's just that the employer would not need to convert it into regular employment, without having to specify why.)
There are countries where this is not idle talk - please be welcome to Sweden. We treat dads and moms equally when it comes to parental leave, and you'd be hard pressed to find a manager who's not understanding of family emergencies. That includes the HR departments.
Uhm. I wrote the post you're referring to, and it was positively a reply to a post about Beanie Babies:
"The key element left out of this comparison is trading volume. At one point, certain Beanie Babies were worth more than gold, but the trade volume was low, and the Beanie Baby economy never took off. It's trivial to drive up the price of a commodity on low trade volume."
My post countered the covert claim about the price of Bitcoin being a result of low trade volumes with the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars in no way makes the price artificially high because of movements on an illiquid market.
Here are the trading volumes on the different exchanges over the last 24h. I'm quoting only the top tree between BTC and local currencies - there are many many more.
Bitfinex $39,590,400 (BTC and US dollars) bitFlyer $37,823,900 (BTC and Japanese Yen) OKCoin.cn $16,917,200 (BTC and Chinese Yuan)
The Internet isn't really worth anything. There are just some people who have convinced themselves that it's useful. You can'r really rely on such people continuing their belief.
It's fine that you don't, but those of us who are aren't really worried. Client side encryption means not trusting the transport layer - even https.
No 1Password data is put at any risk through the bug reported about CloudFlare. 1Password does not depend on the secrecy of SSL/TLS for your security. The security of your 1Password data remains safe and solid.
The security I get from having unique 14+ char completely random passwords for _every_ site by far outweighs the slight possibility that access to both my encrypted binary as well as my master password slips out. The by far easiest attack vector for that would be hacking my systems, and if that happens any system I log on to can be snooped then and there as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Coral reefs are indeed very old. The timing I referenced in my post was ~8000 years ago (feel free to read the scientific paper I sourced) and ~115000 years ago.
Apparently coral reefs have no problem surviving warmer temperatures than what we have now.
It was warmer than now during the early parts of this interglacial (source: Marcott et.al 2013). Also, the previous interglacial (the Eemian) was warmer than ours.
What happened with the coral reefs then?
“We did this calculation; if all the ice in the world melted—Greenland, Arctic, Antarctic, everything—and then we had the world's largest recorded tsunami right in front of the seed vault. So, very high sea levels and the worlds largest Tsunami. What would happen to the seed vault?” Fowler says. “We found that the seed vault was somewhere between a five and seven story building above that point. It might not help the road leading up to the seed vault, but the seeds themselves would be ok."
http://www.popsci.com/seed-vau...
The designers knew the difference between "hottest year ever _recorded_" (that is, within the last few hundred years) and the hottest years _ever_. The arctic has been a lot warmer than now during _this_ interglacial (source: Marcott et.al 2013) - not to mention the previous interglacial, the Eemian.
I don't understand your comment. Politifact have done their homework and fact checked the statements.
The fact-checkers seem to agree with Trump regarding what the MIT study claimed.
According to John Reilly, who co-directs the Joint Program on Science and Policy of Global Change at MIT, the Paris agreement would reduce global temperature by two-tenths of one degree Celsius compared with earlier climate treaties.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
I'm sorry, but the scientific method cares little for nationality ;)
During the Holocene Climatic Optimum it's likely there was no or little summer sea ice in the arctic. I.e, we likely didn't have as cold winters as we've had recently.
Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day conditions.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
(Please feel free to counter my science-based posts with links to scientific research articles rather than just claiming that it's "nonsense" based on your own personal views)
The rate of temperature change is according to climate scientists the fastest we ever had on the planet.
I'm sure you can find scientists (persons) saying that, but it's not what the science (as created by following the scientific method) is saying. Or rather, barring so-called catastrophes (meteor impacts, maybe basalt flooding etc) it's simply unknowable. We do not have proxies of enough resolution to know. However, even if we use the best we have, we find sudden temperature changes to be common.
"Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
My point was not about "nitpicking" about insects. I simply pointed out that your original statement cannot be true. The warming we've seen since the coldest part of the whole Holocene (i.e, since about a few hundred years back) is not exceptional for the Holocene (see previous post for scientific reference) and thus cannot be responsible for a demise of insects.
Please let us know your views on PoS vs PoW - and what Ethereum will decide to use at some point. Also, please explain how it will solve scaling issues since it's more wasteful with block data than Bitcoin.
(Not knowing how to secure the blockchain should be a showstopper, but alas ... )
During the Holocene it was basically everywhere in Europe colder than it is right now
We're in the Holocene, right now. However, during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Bronze Age Warm period it was warmer than now in Europe. Additionally, during the Holocene Climatic Optimum it was warmer, globally, than now:
Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history.
source: Marcott et.al 2013
The rate of temperature change now does not surpass previous periods, during which insects had no problems surviving.
Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times, and may have created difficulties or opportunities (e.g., the possibility of crossing exposed land bridges, before sea level could rise)
source: Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary (Adams, Maslin, Thomas)
Now tell me, since everything above is known and non-disputed climate science, why do you believe differently?
(And which "earth ages" have I "mixed up" specifically?)
My point was simple: Your anecdote does not constitute a valid hypothesis, considering northern Europe specifically is not warm compared to several other periods during the Holocene.
You're absolutely correct. During the Medieval Warm Period (or the earlier Roman and Bronze Age equivalents, not to mention the Holocene Climatic Optimum) there were no insects anywhere in Europe.
Or not.
40k and 90k would be in the middle of a glaciation stage. 130k however seems to be within the Eemian, the warmer interglacial before ours. Humanoids would likely have been expanding their reach during that time.
sidetracked: For that same reason I use Emby, not Plex. Really happy with it as well.
(But of course every screen has Kodi running on it. Emby's only used for mobile and web access from outside the local network)
I think your inability to point out any of the things I asked for, which would've been valid criticism of the article/subject in question, ends the thread nicely.
Really? I've done public presentations on it since 2010. In what way do you believe Kim Dotcom's described venture wouldn't work completely within the Bitcoin network? Please be specific as to how it applies to what's described in this article.
Your comment seems to have nothing to do with the article, and a lot to do with your own misconceptions about Bitcoin.
I am? :) We have no unemployment in the tech sector and we are screaming for qualified personnel. Neither do we have any issues with schedules and budget. Maybe you're talking about a completely different country, not Sweden.
If you search really hard you might be able to find a Swede or two that aren't fluent in English. Otherwise, don't bother learning it. You'll get around perfectly fine in English throughout society.
(Some of my employees who have immigrated do take the time to learn Swedish, but I'm hoping that's because they have long term plans .. )
You can be hired under the concept of "prövotid" (probation), but many workplaces do not use that, especially in sectors where we have a lack of qualified personnel like in tech.
(It's not really fired, then, either. It's just that the employer would not need to convert it into regular employment, without having to specify why.)
There are countries where this is not idle talk - please be welcome to Sweden. We treat dads and moms equally when it comes to parental leave, and you'd be hard pressed to find a manager who's not understanding of family emergencies. That includes the HR departments.
Uhm. I wrote the post you're referring to, and it was positively a reply to a post about Beanie Babies:
"The key element left out of this comparison is trading volume. At one point, certain Beanie Babies were worth more than gold, but the trade volume was low, and the Beanie Baby economy never took off. It's trivial to drive up the price of a commodity on low trade volume."
My post countered the covert claim about the price of Bitcoin being a result of low trade volumes with the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars in no way makes the price artificially high because of movements on an illiquid market.
Here are the trading volumes on the different exchanges over the last 24h. I'm quoting only the top tree between BTC and local currencies - there are many many more.
Bitfinex $39,590,400 (BTC and US dollars)
bitFlyer $37,823,900 (BTC and Japanese Yen)
OKCoin.cn $16,917,200 (BTC and Chinese Yuan)
https://coinmarketcap.com/curr...
A few hundred million dollars over a single day is not likely considered "low trade volume".
The Internet isn't really worth anything. There are just some people who have convinced themselves that it's useful. You can'r really rely on such people continuing their belief.
Srlsly.
Do you believe anything in that link should have any LastPass customer worried?
We're not. The reason why is extensively covered both in that very article and by LastPass themselves.
It's fine that you don't, but those of us who are aren't really worried. Client side encryption means not trusting the transport layer - even https.
No 1Password data is put at any risk through the bug reported about CloudFlare. 1Password does not depend on the secrecy of SSL/TLS for your security. The security of your 1Password data remains safe and solid.
https://blog.agilebits.com/201...
(I use LastPass myself)
The security I get from having unique 14+ char completely random passwords for _every_ site by far outweighs the slight possibility that access to both my encrypted binary as well as my master password slips out. The by far easiest attack vector for that would be hacking my systems, and if that happens any system I log on to can be snooped then and there as well.