You're suggesting humanity could overshoot the target in CO2 sequestration? I wish! It's easy to get a good estimate of how much has been captured so we don't have to wait for outputs to adjust inputs. And if there was an overshoot, it would be trivial to release more fossil CO2, or even methane or some exotic greenhouse gas like the one used in LCDs.
That's why I said "or slightly above," but not by much, certainly not close to what we're experiencing today or what's coming to us with current emissions.
But it's hilarious to suggest that we have to fear the kind of danger from cold people died from in the 1300s~1600s. Those people were almost hunter-gatherers compared to modern society, with its vastly greater ability to predict natural disasters and long-distance trade that make a local cold-induced crop failure little more than an inconvenience, if a farmer somehow walks into one despite modern weather prediction technology and GMO crops. It's vastly easier for modern society to handle cold than heat.
The next ice age that may actually be recognizable as an ice age is a long way off, tens of thousands of years at least. It must be pre-industrial levels, at least in the long term, to prevent future warming and roll back the warming we're already experiencing.
Indeed, if humanity makes it to the next ice age and the planet's CO2 is around pre-industrial levels, it will be necessary to actively prevent the ice age by releasing fossil CO2, perhaps from sequestered carbon stores and burning any easily accessed and relatively clean fossil fuels that might remain for energy.
It's not a system that reacts quickly or easily, getting a precise setting won't be too hard, it's the huge reduction from the current level that will be difficult.
Making the turnaround so that we're heading in generally the right direction would be a good start.
That's not a random from-my-ass number, that's the level of CO2 that was in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution. The -correct- global average temperature is one that fits well with our established civilization and gives good crop yields, which is one that results from pre-industrial CO2 levels or slightly above.
Temperature itself is only part of the problem of global warming, higher CO2 levels alone are bad for ocean pH, human brain performance, and can even be bad for crop yields, just off the top of my head.
Nobody's talking about eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere, just reducing it to around pre-industrial levels which will leave plenty enough for plants This will be an enormous task, there's no risk of overshooting by accident.
They all suffer from the problem to some extent, even if Bitcoin is particularly bad. As with hashing algorithms, there's some conflict between efficiency and security with a blockchain.
A 51% attack against this cryptocurrency would be a direct substitute for counterfeiting US dollars.
Still, the incredible inefficiency of a blockchain makes it far too inefficient to justify its use at any meaningful scale. Visa has a digital currency that is 1:1 with the US dollar, and it's a helluva lot more efficient.
I suspect Netflix and Google are already paying for their Internet connections. If you think you're not charging them enough for each byte, by all means, charge them more for each byte. But if you want to charge people more or less for communicating with certain companies using the bytes they're paying for, then get fucked.
That said... A guy making billions peddling that shit, then patenting a drug to treat the consequences of having taken the original known-addicting drug is magically, cosmically evil.
Recently I've been thinking that a decent logical case could be made that a being like Satan is in control of the universe. Things may seem random and chaotic, but if you look closely there seems to be a strong bias for evil. War criminals retire in comfort to die peacefully of old age while good people die slowly of horrible diseases or as a result of tragic circumstances, often in a way that benefits terrible people. Terrible destructive monsters like this guy are hyper-rich while people who actually improve others' lives usually aren't wealthy. Sometimes you even see a terrible person shockingly saved from even a tiny taste of their just desserts by some crazy combination of bizarre events, like Joe Arpaio. You rarely see good people benefit from such amazing saves out of nowhere. If someone argued that these things are happening because the universe is ruled by a supernatural being of infinite malevolence but finite power, that would be damn hard to argue against.
It could make for an interesting religion: Whatever evil being is supernaturally controlling the world hates us and wants to maximize injustice and suffering while benefiting the useful monsters who do its bidding, and it is the duty of good people to resist these forces and counteract their effects.
Because it hardly has any of the pieces right now - it would be a massive effort to put all the supply chains in place for the various electronics components needed for a whole computer when the US currently makes little more than chips. Currently those supply chains are in Asia (which also has the advantages of cheap labor and lax environmental laws). I'd compare it to going from just making engine blocks to making a whole car, but that underplays the difficulty too much.
Looking at it right now in Firefox on Win10 at default zoom, it looks like there's only 1 or 2 pixels' difference. I took a screenshot to zoom it up to confirm, and indeed due to subpixel rendering, there is only a slight difference in the color of 2 pixels between the two:
I think that would now be called "Making Australia Great Again!" And now Australia is heavily invested in radiation-spewing, planet-murdering coal, which would now be called "#Winning!"
Slashdot Mirror
You're suggesting humanity could overshoot the target in CO2 sequestration? I wish! It's easy to get a good estimate of how much has been captured so we don't have to wait for outputs to adjust inputs. And if there was an overshoot, it would be trivial to release more fossil CO2, or even methane or some exotic greenhouse gas like the one used in LCDs.
That's why I said "or slightly above," but not by much, certainly not close to what we're experiencing today or what's coming to us with current emissions.
But it's hilarious to suggest that we have to fear the kind of danger from cold people died from in the 1300s~1600s. Those people were almost hunter-gatherers compared to modern society, with its vastly greater ability to predict natural disasters and long-distance trade that make a local cold-induced crop failure little more than an inconvenience, if a farmer somehow walks into one despite modern weather prediction technology and GMO crops. It's vastly easier for modern society to handle cold than heat.
The next ice age that may actually be recognizable as an ice age is a long way off, tens of thousands of years at least. It must be pre-industrial levels, at least in the long term, to prevent future warming and roll back the warming we're already experiencing.
Indeed, if humanity makes it to the next ice age and the planet's CO2 is around pre-industrial levels, it will be necessary to actively prevent the ice age by releasing fossil CO2, perhaps from sequestered carbon stores and burning any easily accessed and relatively clean fossil fuels that might remain for energy.
It's not a system that reacts quickly or easily, getting a precise setting won't be too hard, it's the huge reduction from the current level that will be difficult.
Making the turnaround so that we're heading in generally the right direction would be a good start.
Slight correction: CO2 levels actually reached 410ppm last year.
That's not a random from-my-ass number, that's the level of CO2 that was in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution. The -correct- global average temperature is one that fits well with our established civilization and gives good crop yields, which is one that results from pre-industrial CO2 levels or slightly above.
Temperature itself is only part of the problem of global warming, higher CO2 levels alone are bad for ocean pH, human brain performance, and can even be bad for crop yields, just off the top of my head.
We say enough at or slightly above 280ppm, which is well above 180. We're at 400ppm right now.
Nobody's talking about eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere, just reducing it to around pre-industrial levels which will leave plenty enough for plants This will be an enormous task, there's no risk of overshooting by accident.
More seriously, carbon neutral is not enough and the state must go carbon negative. Everywhere will.
MUH TULI^C^C^ BUTTCOINS!
They all suffer from the problem to some extent, even if Bitcoin is particularly bad. As with hashing algorithms, there's some conflict between efficiency and security with a blockchain.
A 51% attack against this cryptocurrency would be a direct substitute for counterfeiting US dollars.
Still, the incredible inefficiency of a blockchain makes it far too inefficient to justify its use at any meaningful scale. Visa has a digital currency that is 1:1 with the US dollar, and it's a helluva lot more efficient.
I suspect Netflix and Google are already paying for their Internet connections. If you think you're not charging them enough for each byte, by all means, charge them more for each byte. But if you want to charge people more or less for communicating with certain companies using the bytes they're paying for, then get fucked.
<head>
<title>Antarctica High-Resolution Map (land only)</title>
</head>
<body style="background-color: #EEEEFF"></body>
</html>
I thought we were talking about global warming.
Who told you this nonsense? It's just physics with perhaps a tiny bit of input from biology. Economics and weather prediction aren't involved.
And here we have another example of how global warming confuses people who don't understand averages.
That said... A guy making billions peddling that shit, then patenting a drug to treat the consequences of having taken the original known-addicting drug is magically, cosmically evil.
Recently I've been thinking that a decent logical case could be made that a being like Satan is in control of the universe. Things may seem random and chaotic, but if you look closely there seems to be a strong bias for evil. War criminals retire in comfort to die peacefully of old age while good people die slowly of horrible diseases or as a result of tragic circumstances, often in a way that benefits terrible people. Terrible destructive monsters like this guy are hyper-rich while people who actually improve others' lives usually aren't wealthy. Sometimes you even see a terrible person shockingly saved from even a tiny taste of their just desserts by some crazy combination of bizarre events, like Joe Arpaio. You rarely see good people benefit from such amazing saves out of nowhere. If someone argued that these things are happening because the universe is ruled by a supernatural being of infinite malevolence but finite power, that would be damn hard to argue against.
It could make for an interesting religion: Whatever evil being is supernaturally controlling the world hates us and wants to maximize injustice and suffering while benefiting the useful monsters who do its bidding, and it is the duty of good people to resist these forces and counteract their effects.
Because it hardly has any of the pieces right now - it would be a massive effort to put all the supply chains in place for the various electronics components needed for a whole computer when the US currently makes little more than chips. Currently those supply chains are in Asia (which also has the advantages of cheap labor and lax environmental laws). I'd compare it to going from just making engine blocks to making a whole car, but that underplays the difficulty too much.
You joke but...
https://what3words.com/
Looking at it right now in Firefox on Win10 at default zoom, it looks like there's only 1 or 2 pixels' difference. I took a screenshot to zoom it up to confirm, and indeed due to subpixel rendering, there is only a slight difference in the color of 2 pixels between the two:
A Linux install disc will have many cryptography binaries, but I'm thinking more along the lines of source code and documentation.
Anyone know of anything like this?
I think that would now be called "Making Australia Great Again!" And now Australia is heavily invested in radiation-spewing, planet-murdering coal, which would now be called "#Winning!"