You should maybe have thought of that one *before* liberating all the energy in those hydrocarbon chains. How about some nice algae instead? We can make some massive algal blooms, laying down lots of carbon-rich sediments, and then come back in a few million years for more oil!
We do not need to import antisemitic memes from whatever vile corner of the Internet you frequent, even under the guise of humor. Take that shit and fuck off.
energy that the volcano adds to the ocean that affects the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
CO2 concentrations are not strongly temperature-dependent, no.
One kilogram of magma will heat up about 500 kg of water 1 degree Celsius. That adds up to a lot of energy very quickly when talking about a pumice flotilla of 400 km^2.
It is not a lot of energy when compared to the Earth's energy budget, and you're ignoring the heat of vaporization. Why don't you try again, preferably with a reputable citation.
Still, cigarette smoking has been plummeting in all age groups, so it's probably a net win. And hey, at least the kids aren't bright enough to buy 2CI on the dark net instead.
Quite correct. It's also notable that one of the reasons why AGW was initially considered discredited was that the oceans have an effectively infinite ability to absorb carbon dioxide, many times what humans could possibly liberate. Therefore, it was reasoned, 'carbonic acid' could not build up in the atmosphere. Unfortunately for everyone of Earth, the oceans overturn at a rate far too low to keep up with the amount of excess carbon we're emitting, and consequently we notice this whole 'ppm' thing going up, and as a nice bonus the oceans are acidifying too.
So as you say, the oceans can deal with the undersea volcanoes just fine. It's the gigatonnes of anthropogenic carbon being dumped directly into the atmosphere that we should probably think about dialing back a few notches.
(If anyone was looking for a citation for your figure of 100x, they would find it in Gerlach, T. (2011). Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 92(24), 201-202. )
Bitcoin is already a failure, you just don't understand what people mean when they talk about functions of money. Stability in a cryptocurrency is going to be achieved by a frictionless exchange and a very-high-volume transaction network, which Bitcoin is not interested in implementing. Some blockchain coin will get there eventually.
Now, perhaps you can find something to do other than inane virtue signaling. It's quite dull.
Are you trying to demonstrate my point? You may be confusing "rising in value" with "gaining ground". Bitcoin's volatility will continue to be useful for fleecing speculators for some while I'm sure, but it does not currently fulfill all the functions of money, and whatever opinion you may have of volatility, it is absolutely something which keeps merchants and retailers away. The merchants who have tried to accept it have been forced to cease doing so. This highly-public recent surge as much as anything else has ended its prospects in the mercantile world.
There are blockchain technologies with a grand future, and Bitcoin is not one of them. It's not going to be one of them without major changes to the protocol, and it's clear by now that the major stakeholders have this game rigged just how they like it.
Yes, you think you're very clever, but using a fucktarded intellectual fig leaf to shield you from the world is not impressing anyone.
The CO2 emissions can be traced to human origins through multiple lines of evidence. The concentration of CO2 is rising. The human origin of CO2 cannot be explained by natural climate change. Were you imagining some debate about that issue, or just exceptionally willing to lie about it?
Yes, actually, being this volatile makes Bitcoin worthless as a currency. One of the functions of money is to be a stable store of value. So far, Bitcoin has been extremely volatile, and unfortunately the signs of stabilization which had begun to emerge are now a distant memory. For my purposes Bitcoin is pretty literally valueless. I can't buy anything with it, and I can't eat it.
What Bitcoin really is, at the moment, is a speculation market. It has small odds of ever becoming a real currency, and it's barely passable as a transaction network. If you're long on Bitcoin you're short on brains.
Not only that, but the scientific revolution of AGW has already happened. The theory of CO2-induced warming was considered completely discredited for about five decades between 1896 and the mid 1950s. We don't remember that the scientific world got turned on its head, because there wasn't a bunch of desperate capitalists trying to make it a political issue.
This is a pretty fucktarded comment. What exactly about the properties of CO2 is up for debate?
An increased global concentration of CO2 pushes the CO2-rich region further out into space. Outgoing IR takes longer to reach space. You want, what, the entire field of knowledge to be compressed into a single sentence to meet your arbitrary standards of approval?
CO2 was recognized to be a potential climate threat in 1896. Where have you been? What is this absurd mental block you have about this science?
The NT kernel is not at all bad, as I understand it, and I hear good things about the new Linux Subsystem for Windows.
Microsoft has thousands of developers trying to implement a singular vision of a desktop, and they don't always get things right. Desktop Linux has far fewer developers, who are mostly scratching their own itches. On top of that, Unix can really only be made user-friendly by making it not-Unix: see OSX, Android, Moblin/MeeGo, and others. The fundamental strength and flaw of Unix is that it is heavily dependent on textual interfaces, which are not discoverable, which is what we usually really mean when we say "easily usable".
So then you take this text-centric community project and say, "But why doesn't it have a good GUI? And why doesn't everything look the same?" The problem is that one has mistaken the fundamental nature of the system, and the process which has produced it.
If you want Windows, use Windows. Linux is not Windows. It will not ever be Windows. That you are repeatedly stating that it should be like Windows does not make that idea less stupid.
But if you are also a developer then you should know very, very well the trouble that is dealing in third party code, especially when the documentation is shoddy or nonexistent.
Yeah? Because it sounds like your problems were related to system libraries. Which suggests that we don't know how to manage those, or when to use a chroot instead. Neither of these things are trivial, but they are part of the job description.
But this brings back to the root of the problem: I am a developer, but why all Linux users also must be a developer to be able to use?
Because the primary interface is textual (i.e. composable, not discoverable) and programmatic, and the distinguishing feature is that it's an open source Unix. If one is not able to take advantage of that, why bother using it?
A desktop should be usable by anyone you know?
No, I do not know this. It sounds like the lead-in to an advertisement for Windows or OS X. The Linux desktop should be usable by anyone, to the degree that this does not impair use by experts. Text configuration files are here to stay, because they are both human-readable and machine-parsable, and especially because they can be edited over a textual interface (SSH), and 90% of Linux computing devices run headless. The degree to which this represents a giant, "fuck you" to the end-user is debatable, but it is a core feature of Unix. Unix is not broken just because people don't know how to use it.
Just because Slashdot has had a running joke about the "Year of Linux on the desktop" for two decades does not mean that anyone is seriously interested in that goal. If Shuttleworth is still paying the idea lip service, he stands alone. Linux is not for everyone, and hopefully never will be.
I did not say you were making it up, I'm saying it's your problem for not knowing how the system works, and how to deal with source code. If you're a developer, figure it out. It's not like dealing with source dependencies is easier on other platforms.
If you're a developer then what's your problem with compiling from source? In what OS are you free from having to deal with library conflicts?
You've lost any sympathy from my perspective here. If you can't figure out how the system works, use something else. This is not the horrible bug-ridden mess you're making it out to be.
Slashdot Mirror
You should maybe have thought of that one *before* liberating all the energy in those hydrocarbon chains. How about some nice algae instead? We can make some massive algal blooms, laying down lots of carbon-rich sediments, and then come back in a few million years for more oil!
n/t
We do not need to import antisemitic memes from whatever vile corner of the Internet you frequent, even under the guise of humor. Take that shit and fuck off.
energy that the volcano adds to the ocean that affects the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
CO2 concentrations are not strongly temperature-dependent, no.
One kilogram of magma will heat up about 500 kg of water 1 degree Celsius. That adds up to a lot of energy very quickly when talking about a pumice flotilla of 400 km^2.
It is not a lot of energy when compared to the Earth's energy budget, and you're ignoring the heat of vaporization. Why don't you try again, preferably with a reputable citation.
So you're like a bad parody of yourself, right?
The difference of course being that cigarettes kill people when used as intended.
Still, cigarette smoking has been plummeting in all age groups, so it's probably a net win. And hey, at least the kids aren't bright enough to buy 2CI on the dark net instead.
Kill yourself, vermin.
Do you mind flinging excrement somewhere else?
Quite correct. It's also notable that one of the reasons why AGW was initially considered discredited was that the oceans have an effectively infinite ability to absorb carbon dioxide, many times what humans could possibly liberate. Therefore, it was reasoned, 'carbonic acid' could not build up in the atmosphere. Unfortunately for everyone of Earth, the oceans overturn at a rate far too low to keep up with the amount of excess carbon we're emitting, and consequently we notice this whole 'ppm' thing going up, and as a nice bonus the oceans are acidifying too.
So as you say, the oceans can deal with the undersea volcanoes just fine. It's the gigatonnes of anthropogenic carbon being dumped directly into the atmosphere that we should probably think about dialing back a few notches.
(If anyone was looking for a citation for your figure of 100x, they would find it in
Gerlach, T. (2011). Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 92(24), 201-202. )
No, you're just confused about what is being said and inventing strawman arguments.
Bitcoin is already a failure, you just don't understand what people mean when they talk about functions of money. Stability in a cryptocurrency is going to be achieved by a frictionless exchange and a very-high-volume transaction network, which Bitcoin is not interested in implementing. Some blockchain coin will get there eventually.
Now, perhaps you can find something to do other than inane virtue signaling. It's quite dull.
Well it's a shame that settling legal questions tends to involve a court, but I do think that's where you might apply for an answer.
Either way, it's clear that the only recourse is to spam any related thread with warranty FUD. Keep on fighting the good fight, there, buddy.
Are you trying to demonstrate my point? You may be confusing "rising in value" with "gaining ground". Bitcoin's volatility will continue to be useful for fleecing speculators for some while I'm sure, but it does not currently fulfill all the functions of money, and whatever opinion you may have of volatility, it is absolutely something which keeps merchants and retailers away. The merchants who have tried to accept it have been forced to cease doing so. This highly-public recent surge as much as anything else has ended its prospects in the mercantile world.
There are blockchain technologies with a grand future, and Bitcoin is not one of them. It's not going to be one of them without major changes to the protocol, and it's clear by now that the major stakeholders have this game rigged just how they like it.
Yes, you think you're very clever, but using a fucktarded intellectual fig leaf to shield you from the world is not impressing anyone.
The CO2 emissions can be traced to human origins through multiple lines of evidence. The concentration of CO2 is rising. The human origin of CO2 cannot be explained by natural climate change. Were you imagining some debate about that issue, or just exceptionally willing to lie about it?
Beg pardon?
Do explain the legal basis for this.
Yes, actually, being this volatile makes Bitcoin worthless as a currency. One of the functions of money is to be a stable store of value. So far, Bitcoin has been extremely volatile, and unfortunately the signs of stabilization which had begun to emerge are now a distant memory. For my purposes Bitcoin is pretty literally valueless. I can't buy anything with it, and I can't eat it.
What Bitcoin really is, at the moment, is a speculation market. It has small odds of ever becoming a real currency, and it's barely passable as a transaction network. If you're long on Bitcoin you're short on brains.
Not only that, but the scientific revolution of AGW has already happened. The theory of CO2-induced warming was considered completely discredited for about five decades between 1896 and the mid 1950s. We don't remember that the scientific world got turned on its head, because there wasn't a bunch of desperate capitalists trying to make it a political issue.
This is a pretty fucktarded comment. What exactly about the properties of CO2 is up for debate?
An increased global concentration of CO2 pushes the CO2-rich region further out into space. Outgoing IR takes longer to reach space. You want, what, the entire field of knowledge to be compressed into a single sentence to meet your arbitrary standards of approval?
CO2 was recognized to be a potential climate threat in 1896. Where have you been? What is this absurd mental block you have about this science?
The NT kernel is not at all bad, as I understand it, and I hear good things about the new Linux Subsystem for Windows.
Microsoft has thousands of developers trying to implement a singular vision of a desktop, and they don't always get things right. Desktop Linux has far fewer developers, who are mostly scratching their own itches. On top of that, Unix can really only be made user-friendly by making it not-Unix: see OSX, Android, Moblin/MeeGo, and others. The fundamental strength and flaw of Unix is that it is heavily dependent on textual interfaces, which are not discoverable, which is what we usually really mean when we say "easily usable".
So then you take this text-centric community project and say, "But why doesn't it have a good GUI? And why doesn't everything look the same?" The problem is that one has mistaken the fundamental nature of the system, and the process which has produced it.
If you want Windows, use Windows. Linux is not Windows. It will not ever be Windows. That you are repeatedly stating that it should be like Windows does not make that idea less stupid.
But if you are also a developer then you should know very, very well the trouble that is dealing in third party code, especially when the documentation is shoddy or nonexistent.
Yeah? Because it sounds like your problems were related to system libraries. Which suggests that we don't know how to manage those, or when to use a chroot instead. Neither of these things are trivial, but they are part of the job description.
But this brings back to the root of the problem: I am a developer, but why all Linux users also must be a developer to be able to use?
Because the primary interface is textual (i.e. composable, not discoverable) and programmatic, and the distinguishing feature is that it's an open source Unix. If one is not able to take advantage of that, why bother using it?
A desktop should be usable by anyone you know?
No, I do not know this. It sounds like the lead-in to an advertisement for Windows or OS X. The Linux desktop should be usable by anyone, to the degree that this does not impair use by experts. Text configuration files are here to stay, because they are both human-readable and machine-parsable, and especially because they can be edited over a textual interface (SSH), and 90% of Linux computing devices run headless. The degree to which this represents a giant, "fuck you" to the end-user is debatable, but it is a core feature of Unix. Unix is not broken just because people don't know how to use it.
Just because Slashdot has had a running joke about the "Year of Linux on the desktop" for two decades does not mean that anyone is seriously interested in that goal. If Shuttleworth is still paying the idea lip service, he stands alone. Linux is not for everyone, and hopefully never will be.
I did not say you were making it up, I'm saying it's your problem for not knowing how the system works, and how to deal with source code. If you're a developer, figure it out. It's not like dealing with source dependencies is easier on other platforms.
If you're a developer then what's your problem with compiling from source? In what OS are you free from having to deal with library conflicts?
You've lost any sympathy from my perspective here. If you can't figure out how the system works, use something else. This is not the horrible bug-ridden mess you're making it out to be.