Not so simple. The ocean is a buffer system. As its pH decreases, so does the rate at which it buries calcium carbonate. This feed-back will likely increase the alkalinity of seawater once the pH drops below some threshold, causing the ocean to absorb *more* CO2 than it normally would to catch up.
In theory. But recent work suggests the rate of CO2 absorption by the oceans has declined. Remember, warmer liquids can hold less dissolved gas than cooler ones. Sea surface temps have been rising at the high-end of the "worst case" predictions. In spite of the down-turn in solar activity.
It's not the same runaway effect that alarmists have been touting in regards to the climate.
"And then you went and spoiled it all, by saying something stupid and retaaaaarded."
The one from the 70's that said we were going to freeze? 'Global Warming' from the late 90's where we were going to cook. Or the recently changed to 'Global Climate Change' so that it can cover any change at all.
I think you're remembering it wrong. In the 70's scientists started to worry about the rise in CO2 levels (CO2 was known to be a greenhouse gas since the 19th century.) The pioneering studies were published in that decade.
By the 80's there was also evidence of a temperature rise (theory, prediction, data, confirmation! Science! It works bitches!) Scientists began holding regular multi-disciplinary conferences on the topic, and even the non-science media started to pick up on the "Global Warming" message.
Right-wing politicians in the US, and the world over (Reaganites & Thatcherites), started to worry about the traction the scientists were getting with the general public. So they, and their sponsors, began to wage a campaign against the scientists. A Republican spin doctor created the term "Climate Change" after polling showed that, to the public, "Climate Change" felt less urgent than "Global Warming".
This effort to politicise the science came together in the early 90's in the IPCC, designed to ensure the scientists were made subservient to the politicians (unlike the previous science-only conferences.) They even politicised the name! However, by the time they published, two decades of research has started to make an impact and some countries' politicians accepted the problem as both Real and Important. This allowed IPCC, while crippled, to at least include some genuine science.
Another decade ends, and all political progress has halted. A decade of decreased solar activity, which should have resulted is significant temperature decline, but instead had still rising temperatures. Ten more years of... But you don't care. You didn't read this far. Your eyes glazed over, your mind shut down. "All progress halted." If you haven't been convinced by 30 years of continuous scientific confirmation, you won't ever be convinced.
Some fields of research are ambiguous. You can't tell, at the early stages, which way the science will go, which theory will be supported. Other fields are arrow straight, nearly every finding supports the core hypothesis. Quantum mechanics, big-bang-theory, they were like that. So is climate research. Every year we hit more and more of the "Worst case" numbers in IPCC's models; carbon emissions rising faster than expected, ocean absorption of CO2 declining faster than predicted, sea level rises at the top of the range, etc etc. But you don't care. It's not about science, it's... hell I don't know. Why are you so determined to ignore the science? Why do you trust scientists in other areas, but act like a medieval villager when it comes to climate research?
At 50km, Venus has constant winds that circle the planet every four (earth) days. So if you drift, you have a fairly reasonable light/dark cycle. (Well better than 200+ days.)
Balloons. Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere is less dense than a high CO2 atmosphere at the same pressure. Therefore a bubble of breathable air would float in Venus's atmosphere.
And at about 50km altitude (about 10,000 rods), atmospheric pressure is 1atm, temperature range is 0-50deg C.
Next thing you'll know, Republicans and Democrats will just appoint our "choices" for us.
IMO, it could lead to the opposite. Provided people don't over-react about "spirit of the primaries." (The Spirit died long ago, dude, it's dead.)
In a few decades, you could end up merging the Rep/Dem primaries, and produce a sensible "run-off" system that ensures the top two most popular candidates for the final election.
In 2008, because Bush poisoned the republican vote, it's likely the two top candidates were Obama and Hillary. In 2000, Bush and McCain (with McCain winning.)
What is really needed is some sort of linguistic reform for English - standardizing pronunciation rules, reducing irregularities, and maybe normalizing spelling rules.
Simplified English? That you have never heard of these before should give you an idea of how well they are going.
Well, I did read the headline as "Eight year old study..." and thought, yeah that's slashdot. So I was pleasantly surprised to find the story was both current and interesting. Is that positive enough for you?
I would suggest two or three such TLDs for various age ranges.
Yeah,.tot,.kid,.teen, perhaps.
(Hang on, maybe not.teen)
The only problem I see is with defining the limits of what is allowed to be in such a "domain".
True, but governments have education departments, which have "age appropriate material" guidelines out the wazoo. That's why I suggest that filter-hungry governments should run their own opt-in DNSes.
One problem with the latter is that kids are going to want to see what's on the "adult only" sites.
IMO, adult-content blocking is really only appropriate for very young kids. (And maybe workplaces. For much the same reason.) Once a kid is old enough to break filters, they are old enough to surf without filters. That's why white-lists are much more useful to parents than blacklists.
Is that why so many dotcom billionaires are involved in new.space? 'Tis the new New Frontier.
[30 years later...]
"UN announced plans to take over the currently unregulated asteroid trade..."
"In unrelated news, asteroid-mining quadrillionaire, Jon Goff Jr., announced plans to develop Pulse-Wave ships capable of reaching the Oort Cloud in weeks rather than years..."
As others have pointed out, ".kid" would be far more useful to parents than ".sex".
Likewise, if governments in Britain and Australia are so keen on filtering, why don't they run a graded whitelist server, free to ISPs to offer it to parents for their kids' accounts.
"I'd like one R-4 level filtered-account, one R-7, and one adult with phishing & malware block, please."
It's easier for parents than trying to manage net-nanny software, saves ISPs the hassle of administering the filter (they just supply the IP of the Gov DNS on log-in).
Hey, if you communications ministers think filtering won't cost ISPs any extra, RUN IT YOURSELF! Call for bids, publish the figures, and see if you can justify that cost as being worth it to the taxpayer. If you can't, maybe you were wrong in the first place.
this is... about getting more bodies to help blow shit up. America is headed toward a state of perpetual war, but still has an all-volunteer force. Nobody would support or comply with another draft.
There's no need. You have a huge prison population, compared to other countries. Mostly drug-related offenses, mostly non-violent, mostly young. Offering X years off their sentence for every year served in the military to prisoners would result in an increase in enlistments. Increase X until you meet your recruitment goals.
Likewise. ABP, NoScript, Ghostery, and crap still gets through.
Meanwhile, I'll go and read speciality genre-sites (Tech, Cars, Boats, etc), product reviews that are little more than rewrites of press-releases, and buy dead-tree editions of PC and Tech mags. It's not as if I hate ads. I just HATE ADS.
'real spaceships' [...] The fuel costs to this approach would be higher -- Apollo didn't have to burn its engines to get back into Earth orbit, it dropped all its energy during its direct re-entry
We're better at aero-braking into orbit now than we were during Apollo. And that would result in "real spaceships" that look a little more like SF spaceships.:)
Julian Assange [...] didn't actually leak the cables [...] If this is a national security issue, it has everything to do with our gov't's ability to keep the information secure and nothing to do with wikileaks.
I just used the last of my mod-points, but you deserve to be modded up just to make sure more people see this point.
The reason it was leaked is that, IIRC, 3 million people have access to this intel. We heard about it because of wikileaks, but isn't it likely that much much more has been sold to any nation that wants it?
There might be a few allies who, out of politeness, haven't sought this info, but very few rivals. So the only people this stuff is news to is us.
Slashdot Mirror
Not so simple. The ocean is a buffer system. As its pH decreases, so does the rate at which it buries calcium carbonate. This feed-back will likely increase the alkalinity of seawater once the pH drops below some threshold, causing the ocean to absorb *more* CO2 than it normally would to catch up.
In theory. But recent work suggests the rate of CO2 absorption by the oceans has declined. Remember, warmer liquids can hold less dissolved gas than cooler ones. Sea surface temps have been rising at the high-end of the "worst case" predictions. In spite of the down-turn in solar activity.
It's not the same runaway effect that alarmists have been touting in regards to the climate.
"And then you went and spoiled it all, by saying something stupid and retaaaaarded."
The one from the 70's that said we were going to freeze? 'Global Warming' from the late 90's where we were going to cook. Or the recently changed to 'Global Climate Change' so that it can cover any change at all.
I think you're remembering it wrong. In the 70's scientists started to worry about the rise in CO2 levels (CO2 was known to be a greenhouse gas since the 19th century.) The pioneering studies were published in that decade.
By the 80's there was also evidence of a temperature rise (theory, prediction, data, confirmation! Science! It works bitches!) Scientists began holding regular multi-disciplinary conferences on the topic, and even the non-science media started to pick up on the "Global Warming" message.
Right-wing politicians in the US, and the world over (Reaganites & Thatcherites), started to worry about the traction the scientists were getting with the general public. So they, and their sponsors, began to wage a campaign against the scientists. A Republican spin doctor created the term "Climate Change" after polling showed that, to the public, "Climate Change" felt less urgent than "Global Warming".
This effort to politicise the science came together in the early 90's in the IPCC, designed to ensure the scientists were made subservient to the politicians (unlike the previous science-only conferences.) They even politicised the name! However, by the time they published, two decades of research has started to make an impact and some countries' politicians accepted the problem as both Real and Important. This allowed IPCC, while crippled, to at least include some genuine science.
Another decade ends, and all political progress has halted. A decade of decreased solar activity, which should have resulted is significant temperature decline, but instead had still rising temperatures. Ten more years of... But you don't care. You didn't read this far. Your eyes glazed over, your mind shut down. "All progress halted." If you haven't been convinced by 30 years of continuous scientific confirmation, you won't ever be convinced.
Some fields of research are ambiguous. You can't tell, at the early stages, which way the science will go, which theory will be supported. Other fields are arrow straight, nearly every finding supports the core hypothesis. Quantum mechanics, big-bang-theory, they were like that. So is climate research. Every year we hit more and more of the "Worst case" numbers in IPCC's models; carbon emissions rising faster than expected, ocean absorption of CO2 declining faster than predicted, sea level rises at the top of the range, etc etc. But you don't care. It's not about science, it's... hell I don't know. Why are you so determined to ignore the science? Why do you trust scientists in other areas, but act like a medieval villager when it comes to climate research?
tl;dr? sfw
or, just pick a spot, flip on the solar powered fans, and, at a lazy speed no faster than a person walks, maintain constant position in the sky.
Lazy? That wind is blowing at 300+kmh.
Drift. Ask any balloonist, lovely way to travel.
At 50km, Venus has constant winds that circle the planet every four (earth) days. So if you drift, you have a fairly reasonable light/dark cycle. (Well better than 200+ days.)
Oops. Didn't see Circle's comment.
Balloons. Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere is less dense than a high CO2 atmosphere at the same pressure. Therefore a bubble of breathable air would float in Venus's atmosphere.
And at about 50km altitude (about 10,000 rods), atmospheric pressure is 1atm, temperature range is 0-50deg C.
Sky cities.
Six tons? What's it made of, depleted uranium?
Next thing you'll know, Republicans and Democrats will just appoint our "choices" for us.
IMO, it could lead to the opposite. Provided people don't over-react about "spirit of the primaries." (The Spirit died long ago, dude, it's dead.)
In a few decades, you could end up merging the Rep/Dem primaries, and produce a sensible "run-off" system that ensures the top two most popular candidates for the final election.
In 2008, because Bush poisoned the republican vote, it's likely the two top candidates were Obama and Hillary. In 2000, Bush and McCain (with McCain winning.)
Wouldn't that be a more interesting system?
the game has still made over $1 billion in sales, and its 20,000,000+ players [...] since the game's launch in early November.
So... "Massively pirated game becomes wildly popular and makes shitloads of money!"
Okay, correlation is not causation, but what was all the panic over?
Oh. I was hoping it was the porn.
What is really needed is some sort of linguistic reform for English - standardizing pronunciation rules, reducing irregularities, and maybe normalizing spelling rules.
Simplified English? That you have never heard of these before should give you an idea of how well they are going.
With some regularity I run into Dutch, German, Japanese, and Russian sites when looking for various information.
Heh, "various information".
Sorry, Crash Ax
Thus having a weapon would still be advantageous even to a malicious pilot.
Fortunately, the aircraft manufacturer provided a large fire-axe in the cockpit.
Well, I did read the headline as "Eight year old study..." and thought, yeah that's slashdot. So I was pleasantly surprised to find the story was both current and interesting. Is that positive enough for you?
I would suggest two or three such TLDs for various age ranges.
Yeah, .tot, .kid, .teen, perhaps.
(Hang on, maybe not .teen)
The only problem I see is with defining the limits of what is allowed to be in such a "domain".
True, but governments have education departments, which have "age appropriate material" guidelines out the wazoo. That's why I suggest that filter-hungry governments should run their own opt-in DNSes.
One problem with the latter is that kids are going to want to see what's on the "adult only" sites.
IMO, adult-content blocking is really only appropriate for very young kids. (And maybe workplaces. For much the same reason.) Once a kid is old enough to break filters, they are old enough to surf without filters. That's why white-lists are much more useful to parents than blacklists.
Is that why so many dotcom billionaires are involved in new.space? 'Tis the new New Frontier.
[30 years later...]
"UN announced plans to take over the currently unregulated asteroid trade..."
"In unrelated news, asteroid-mining quadrillionaire, Jon Goff Jr., announced plans to develop Pulse-Wave ships capable of reaching the Oort Cloud in weeks rather than years..."
As others have pointed out, ".kid" would be far more useful to parents than ".sex".
Likewise, if governments in Britain and Australia are so keen on filtering, why don't they run a graded whitelist server, free to ISPs to offer it to parents for their kids' accounts.
"I'd like one R-4 level filtered-account, one R-7, and one adult with phishing & malware block, please."
It's easier for parents than trying to manage net-nanny software, saves ISPs the hassle of administering the filter (they just supply the IP of the Gov DNS on log-in).
Hey, if you communications ministers think filtering won't cost ISPs any extra, RUN IT YOURSELF! Call for bids, publish the figures, and see if you can justify that cost as being worth it to the taxpayer. If you can't, maybe you were wrong in the first place.
There will be a bit of friction and then the Army will adjust OK.
Ooo, I bet you say that to all the boys...
this is ... about getting more bodies to help blow shit up. America is headed toward a state of perpetual war, but still has an all-volunteer force. Nobody would support or comply with another draft.
There's no need. You have a huge prison population, compared to other countries. Mostly drug-related offenses, mostly non-violent, mostly young. Offering X years off their sentence for every year served in the military to prisoners would result in an increase in enlistments. Increase X until you meet your recruitment goals.
Likewise. ABP, NoScript, Ghostery, and crap still gets through.
Meanwhile, I'll go and read speciality genre-sites (Tech, Cars, Boats, etc), product reviews that are little more than rewrites of press-releases, and buy dead-tree editions of PC and Tech mags. It's not as if I hate ads. I just HATE ADS.
As in Ghostery? Or do you mean a data-spoofer, not just a blocker?
(Two trackers on this page: Google Analytics, Doubleclick. Status: Blocked. (But then I'm logged in, so...))
( [Laughs] Google sent me to the French Mozilla add-on page. "So, you do not like our tracking, eh?")
'real spaceships' [...] The fuel costs to this approach would be higher -- Apollo didn't have to burn its engines to get back into Earth orbit, it dropped all its energy during its direct re-entry
We're better at aero-braking into orbit now than we were during Apollo. And that would result in "real spaceships" that look a little more like SF spaceships. :)
What do we have... Remote-control planes? better guns?
Not quibbling over your basic point, but we will get some excellent prosthetics out of this war.
It's at once sad and awesome.
Julian Assange [...] didn't actually leak the cables [...] If this is a national security issue, it has everything to do with our gov't's ability to keep the information secure and nothing to do with wikileaks.
I just used the last of my mod-points, but you deserve to be modded up just to make sure more people see this point.
The reason it was leaked is that, IIRC, 3 million people have access to this intel. We heard about it because of wikileaks, but isn't it likely that much much more has been sold to any nation that wants it?
There might be a few allies who, out of politeness, haven't sought this info, but very few rivals. So the only people this stuff is news to is us.