Other terms of the IP license agreement were not disclosed.
So for all we know, Sony said "look, kid, here's a hundred bucks, go screw yourself, or we'll sue you to oblivion." Forgent spins this as the "second IP license" (who was the first?) to try to get other people to fall in line, and discloses nothing about the Sony deal because they don't want people to know that they're already up the creek.
In other words, don't assume that Forgent is on top, especially when the only source of information on the IP license comes from Forgent and contains no details of the agreement.
Listen to your fringe.. you'll hear the lunacy. Hell, listen to your congressbeings, cos there are just as many loopy loons on the left side of the aisle as there are on the right.
So in other words, you can't post a reference. That's about what I thought.:) And nobody's saying there aren't wackos on both sides of the political spectrum - there may even be more on "my" side - but at least I can quote "your" wackos.:)
Hahaha, you don't like being labelled? Well goddamn, you folks should have thought about that before you went apeshit with them on everyone. Turnabout is fair play.
Where do you get that from? I just thought you used 'militant' in a strange manner. Label away, see if I care.
After all, according to their own diatribes, if you don't give money and support to PBS and the Dems, you're killing children.
Funny, I'm a 'militant' (what, like I shoot people?) liberal and haven't heard that one, yet. Care to post a reference? Just for laughs' sake, if nothing else.:)
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
Damn, that's funny. Sounds like a great.sig...do you mind?:)
Individual users can still own, share, and make JPG, it's just the programs they use (or more accurately, the people who make that software) that will be liable for licensing fees.
I see your point. This isn't going to kill home users at all, but HP's not gonna be happy.:)
They DO care about the very large companies that use JPEG compression in thier products, simply because if the patent holds up (I have no idea how valid or invalid it appears to be) those same very large companies will be in hock to the tune of a lot of $$$ to the patent holders.
Exactly - and what we have is a no-name, two-bit company that hocks video "solutions" and scheduling software that's trying to patent the JPG format to squeeze money from companies that use JPG. Names like HP, Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Kodak, etc. spring to mind. They'll need good lawyers indeed to ramrod this patent through all the lawsuits.
Remember - none of these big names were directly affected by the Unisys/GIF nonsense, because the GIF format wasn't bundled in with their hardware. The big boys have a much more invested in this bout of patent (double entendre! hah!) nonsense.:)
*snort* what is the sound of millions of people flipping these guys off? Most people ignore the GIF compression threats - now we're supposed to fear for JPG suits? What about all the scanners out there whose default settings are to create JPG images? How about the thousands upon thousands of on-line amateur photographers whose thumbnails are in JPG format?
Let's face it: it was tough to change people's minds to use PNG instead of GIF. Do they really think they're going to make headway suing people for using JPG images? From the article:
"We wanted to ensure the investment community and the general public are clear about the terms of our valuable JPEG data compression technology, one of the many technologies we have in our patent portfolio," stated Richard Snyder, chairman and chief executive officer at Forgent. "We are in ongoing discussions with other manufacturers of digital still cameras, printers, scanners and other products that use JPEG technology for licensing opportunities."
Like I said, best of luck. I'd love to see this guy get his ass handed to him by the very large companies who use JPG compression.
For just $20 the Koss KTX-PRO (also called the Optimus Titanium 35 Pro at Radio Shack) headphones will get you better sound than hundreds, if not thousands of dollars of amps and speakers.
(emphasis mine)
And the grandparent post is right: it's much, much easier to produce fantastic quality sound from headphones than from a speaker set, and for much less money.
Now if you can find me a set of $20 speakers that sound better then those klipsch pro-media 5.1 -- i will print out this post and eat it.
Does that apply if the speakers are connected to a headset?:) I agree that the pro-medias are great speakers, but when you really want good quality at a low price, it's much better to get headphones, and as somebody's already mentioned, your neighbors will love you for it as well.:)
Let?s look at your argument. You state that the Venusian albedo is near twice that of Earth, and thus makes a significant contribution to the greenhouse effect on Venus. Therefore, for the Earth to develop the sort of greenhouse effect that is present on Venus it would have to develop an albedo at greater than that of Venus, given Venusian TOA solar flux is ~3/4ths greater that the Terrestrial TOA solar flux.
No, no, no...my argument is that since the Venusian albedo is twice that of the Earth, the fact that Venus receives 1.9 times the solar energy of the Earth makes no difference for the effective surface temperature. Read my post again, and I apologize if that wasn't clear. What I'm stating is that the fact that Venus is at 0.72 AU has no effect on the surface temperature being warmer, as it stands presently.
Beyond that there is the question of atmospheric genesis. That Venus has an albedo ~twice that of Earth manifestly demonstrates divergent atmospheric evolutions. The differentiation in the magnitude of the solar flux at 0.72 vs. 1.00 AU in this divergence of atmospheric genesis is necessarily a first order factor. In the early solar system planetary bodies were very much hotter that they currently are. Ergo, the higher solar flux at 0.72 AU in ALL likelihood had a VERY significant impact on the chemical genesis of the Venusian atmosphere.
This is a more interesting point - it is possible (and realistically likely) that, early in the formation of the Venusian atmosphere, the additional solar radiation received by Venus allowed the precipitation of a runaway CO2 effect. All this shows, however, is that given a sufficient amount of greenhouse gas and solar radiation, a positive-feedback mechanism can occur. This 'runaway' effect will eventually stabilize as heavier and heavier atmospheric species are vaporized - on Venus, the runaway greenhouse stopped with the formation of clouds of SO2, which provide sufficient planetary albedo to stabilize the IR warming of the abundant CO2 present.
Finally:
This leaves us with the real question here.
Can anthropogenic greenhouse gasses effect the chemical composition of the Terrestrial atmosphere to the degree that its composition reflects (;D) that of the Venusian atmosphere.
I think the real real question here is this: can anthropogenic gases affect the chemical composition of the Terrestrial atmosphere to the degree that its radiative properties reflect that of the Venusian atmosphere.
Remember, the primary greenhouse gas on Earth is water vapor. The Venusian atmosphere is composed of some 82 bars of CO2. Earth contains a roughly similar mass of H2O, but we keep in it our oceans, not in our atmosphere.:) Both CO2 and H2O act to absorb and re-emit thermal infrared radiation - on Venus, the runaway greenhouse effect was virtually guaranteed since there's a phenomenal amount of the absorbing gas in the atmosphere. Here on Earth, we live in a more delicate balance: the surface temperature is not warm enough to vaporize more than a few tens of grams/kilogram of water vapor. This is regulated by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, which relates the vapor pressure of water to (among other things) the temperature of the air. Thus the argument: an increase in the terrestrial surface temperature (for whatever reason) will coincide with a corresponding increase in water vapor. It is possible (although not well understood) that this can result in a positive feedback loop:
Perturb the surface temperature upward
This results in higher water vapor pressure due to increased surface evaporation
Increase in water vapor leads to increased IR heating of surface
goto 1
So there remain two key elements to understanding a 'runaway' greenhouse effect: One, what initial temperature perturbation is necessary to initiate a runaway feedback loop as described above. Two, what is the effect of increased water vapor on high cloud/low cloud cover? This will further modify the radiative properties of the atmosphere, through increases in albedo, and will either permit or negate a positive feedback reaction to occur. Naturally, the second point is one we fail to understand at present.:)
Regardless, is has been postulated that a sufficient increase in CO2 due to anthropogenic sources (perhaps as little as a few tens of ppmv more, say) would be sufficient to trigger a water vapor feedback event, or the famous 'runaway' greenhouse effect. We don't need Venusian quantities of CO2 for a runaway event: we only need enough to trigger a runaway event with the radiatively interactive chemical species we do have enough of, namely, water. And we do not sufficiently understand either point one or two well enough to know the answer to these questions.
Personally, I find the likelihood of a 'runaway' greenhouse event to be phenominally small, and the 'runaway' event to be largely unnecessary hype. What I do care about is the effect of even a slight warming - just a few degrees Celsius can have a dramatic impact on the climate. Regardless, it's not so much the orbital parameters as it is the chemical concentrations that determine the greenhouse effect, as I hope we've shown to the three people still reading this thread.:) Feel free to respond (post or email: see my homepage for the addy) if you have more to discuss, and I've enjoyed the replies!
While Venus has an exposed surface area that is 0.9 times that of Earth, it receives a flux density 1.93 times that of Earth, thus as 1.93 * 0.9 = 1.74 then Venus receives ~ 3/4 more energy from the Sun than does the Earth.
...at top-of-atmosphere. You're still not accounting for the fact that the Venusian albedo is 0.65 - nearly twice that of the Earth (albedo = 0.37). Reflected solar energy does not contribute to the radiative balance of an atmosphere.
Just for old times' sake, I pulled out my calculations for surface effective temperature based on TOA incident radiation and albedo. Using NASA values for the Venusian TOA solar flux and albedo (see this link for the numbers - which confirm (as did my own calculations) that the incident solar flux at TOA of Venus is indeed 1.9 times that of the Earth) I compute using the standard equivalent blackbody temperature formula (e.g. Salby, eq. 1.30.2) that the effective temperature of Venus is 252 K (note that the NASA 'blackbody' temperature is not the effective blackbody temperature because we want to use the visual geometric albedo for shortwave calculations, not the bond value).
The equivalent blackbody temperature for Earth is ~255 K. Thus we see the importance of the greenhouse effect - not only does the chemical composition of Venus provide a ~500 K greenhouse warming, but the Earth undergoes an approximate 30 K warming itself, due to water vapor absorption and re-emission in the IR band. Therefore, anything that modifies the ambient surface water vapor budget (such as a slight warming due to CO2 increases, for example) will affect the Earth's 'natural' greenhouse effect. We would do well to understand this phenomenon completely before deciding that anthropogenic emission of CO2 plays no role in global warming. Regardless of all this, we see that the TOA solar fluxes are not the dominant term in the simple radiative budget, as the albedo contributes equally to the equation, and can trivially negate any solar 'advantage' that Venus would have over its more distant solar neighbors.
References: Salby, M.L., 1996: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics. Academic Press, 627 pp.
Works great if you're on Venus, BOTOH Venus has the most circular orbit of any planet in the Solar System not an insignificant factor.
Hmm...IIRC, Earth's orbital eccentricity is only 0.0167 - pretty darn near circular. Besides which, orbital eccentricity plays essentially no role in determining mean characteristics - if it did, the Northern hemisphere winter would be warmer than Southern hemisphere winters, since Earth's perihelion falls during December. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.
More importantly Venus lies at a distance of 0.72 AU from the Sun. Thus with the inverse square law Venus receives approximately 1.3 times as much energy as the Earth, i.e. 30% more energy from the Sun as the Earth. This is VERY significantly in the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus.
You forgot to mention that Venus is smaller - it's mean radius is some 300km less than that of the Earth's. By my calculations, it therefore intercepts by area only 90% of what the Earth receives. Granted it's more 'dense' (per steradian) energy, but it almost balances out. Furthermore, the fact that Venus is entirely covered by clouds lead to a very high planetary albedo, which drastically reduces the amount of solar radiation the surface recieves. I remember calculating the Venusian effective surface temperature based on orbital characteristics as an undergrad - it came out to be pretty close to Earth's, IIRC. The dominant factor in Venus' hellishly hot temperature, therefore, is not due to its orbital characteristics, but rather its chemical composition.
Trying to assert that any build up of greenhouse gases on Earth due to humanity will cause Earth to develop anything remotely like the atmospheric conditions on Venus in complete nonsense.
Why do you say this? I doubt you could realistically support this argument. Were Earth to undergo a sufficiently strong positive cloud feedback, it would be entirely possible to achieve a runaway greenhouse effect. Where do you get your science from - your own calculations, or the TV?
Thanks for the compliment, but remember my main point: we don't know if we're teetering on the edge yet, because we don't understand the role clouds play. It's perfectly possible that an increase in global mean temperature will lead to an increase in high cloud cover, which tends to negate the greenhouse warming of CO2. The real problem is we don't know what's going to happen - we just don't understand the climate system well enough yet.
Hampering the problem are posts like the guy that replied to your post - people who don't realize a cloud albedo feedback/radiative transfer budget topic, and instead post nonsense about anthropogenic gases.:) Thanks for the insightful reply - it's a shame people don't get karma for posting when they actually understand what the thread's about.:)
The compositional change in the atmosphere (mostly how much CO2 is present) could theoretically be balanced by changes in the cloud balance (% of clouds to land area.) This would affect the albedo. I have seen research on this presenting solid evidence that the amount of cloudage has increased in the last few decades (the range of good global data.)
You are absolutely correct - however, the changes in cloud cover could also increase global warming effect, depending on the cloud-top height. The albedo changes are important, of course, and cloud-cover is cloud-cover, as far as shortwave (solar) radiation is concerned, but the effect on global temperatures is based on the balance of the shortwave and the longwave (e.g. terrestrial longwave radiation.) And the type of cloud (low or high) changes the longwave effects.
For example, low clouds, such as marine stratocumulus, radiate at approximately the same blackbody temperature as does the earth's surface, leading to no real net change in the surface IR budget of the planet, while reducing SW absorption by the surface (due to the increase in albedo, as you have correctly stated.) High clouds (such as cumulonimbus anvil cirrus) OTOH, radiate at a much, much colder IR temperature than do their low-altitude counterpart, and as such, contribute a net warming under the right circumstances to the net radiative budget. The type of cloud, composition, height, and thickness of the cloud all contribute to the cloud radiative forcing, and depending on the mix of these variables, can either negate global warming entirely, or enhance it in a runaway event. And the sad part is, we just don't know exactly which feedback mechanism is more likely.
The fact that the globe has gotten cloudier (according to empirical evidence) is interesting in itself - but whether it's a good thing or not, we don't know yet.:)
Actually, I believe the biggest effect of global warming (at least a few degrees) is the rise in sea level due to ice cap melting, not single area warming or cooling.
Again, correct. I wish people would focus on this and not any assumed microclimate changes.:)
Heh...yeah, I knew all of that - and you might want to check out the Bitter Films webpage, because you can, in fact, buy the 'Rejected' short on DVD. My friend has a copy, and also likes chimpanzees, and also occasionally reads/., which is why I posted: I think the parent post of my original post (confused? I am!:) is actually my 'Rejected'-fan, chimp-loving friend, who also coincidentally works for HP. Sorry about the confusion!
And it's odd how certain natural disasters get coverage, while others go unmentioned. I had to say that, just to keep this somewhat on topic.:) Thanks for the info, though!
Kind of, but not really. Check out this link to see why.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 of the US Code first defines what fair use is, and then states that for these cases (which fall under the definition of fair use) that use of the copyrighted work doesn't infringe on the copyright. You're technically right about fair use not being protected by law per se, but your post implies that it's only a judicial precedent. It's not - it's a clearly defined escape clause in copyright usage.
Of course, IANAL, YMMV, ROLLIN HAND, but it's worth noting that there already exists a "concept of fair use" in the law. Legislation like the DMCA usually comes about when people don't know and/or understand the laws they already have.
Right, it sounds like a troll, but that line of questioning does make sense:
(a) If the computers are donated with an O/S on them, then nobody at the school agreed to an EULA.
Just the other day, there was a story somewhere that was posted to Slashdot about this situation. Basically, the gist of it was that Microsoft has set "guidelines" for school systems accepting donated PCs, wherein MS says that even donated PCs are legally bound to their original EULA, and if the requisite materials are not included with the donated PC (such as manuals, install disks, COAs, etc.) then the school should not accept the donation. Complete horseshit, of course, but it looks as though MS is setting themselves up to squeeze a few more licensing dollars out of us all by going after our schools, now.
Anybody else surprised at this? First the set-up, then the attack on a sacrificial goat conveniently located to MS HQ. Jeez.
This sounds more like Nazi Germany or Maoist China than the US.
I would agree, and I'll have to go look up the article. For God's sake, I hope it's a mistake, but the way the DOJ is run now, I'm afraid it might not be. Whatever the case, that guy's civil rights were violated, and there's no excuse for that. This is where the "we'll do anything to stop the terrorists" argument comes all-the-way apart.
I'm guessing this is the guy I replied to, since his inability to reason cogently is well-balanced by the fact that he posts AC when he wants to talk some shit. Chicken.:)
And as far as I'm concerned, we have a couple hundred thousand criminals here who have no business being here. If you don't like our laws and find them oppressive, I suggest you either find a way to change them or leave.
Remember, they're only criminals because we make 'em out that way now. A hundred years ago, they weren't 'criminals' - they were 'New Americans'. And I wonder if all the shit that goes down isn't a result of our inability (or rather, your inability) to cope with new people, and the ideas they bring with them. Just a thought.
And as for finding a way to change laws - well, they'd have to become legalized citizens to vote and do that. But have you looked at how tough it is to get naturalized nowadays? It's not just memorize the Pledge of Allegiance and sign a few forms - it's a difficult, nasty, brutish process that favors wealthy people with the means to process all the paperwork and support themselves in the meantime. "Illegal" immigrants are those who can't support their family for a year-and-a-half (which is about what it takes) while waiting for the clodhoppers at INS to pull their thumbs out and do their job. And because they prefer working for shit wages (usually less than minimum wage, because hey, they're illegal - who will they complain to?) to whatever hellhole country they just left, they do it, and become 'criminals' in the mind of half-witted retards such as yourself.
Think about that - these people think that America is so great that they're willing to come over, earn half of nothing and get treated like less-than-human slime from some uppity asshole. Not because they're dumb, but because in spite of all the shit these immigrants have to put up with, it's still better than wherever they came from. That should make you proud that the U.S. is doing something right - torturing Canadians notwithstanding.
On the positive side, I got enough +1 mods to put me at the karma cap for dusting your sorry arguments off, so thanks! And next time, you'll get more respect (and less flamage) if you'll find your balls and post under your real name, ok?
Is the right of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to be here now considered an "essential liberty"?
Funny, there was a time when there was no illegal immigration - everybody was welcome. Personally, I find that the right to travel wherever my feet take me is indeed an essential liberty, and I'm sure the Framers thought likewise. But it would seem that those who prefer a false sense of security to God-given freedoms followed the patriots to America and set up shop.
People have used that phrase to justify alot, and frankly, I'm not buying it this time either.
Justify what? The granting of freedoms? Actually, the only time that phrase gets mentioned is when people attempt to take away liberties we already have. What are you talking about, exactly?
Toss out everyone who is here illegally, and we wouldn't have need of this crackpot National ID card.
Riiight...it's those damn furriners who are causing all the trouble. Except, of course, for Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, the KKK, etc. PC has nothing to do with it, pal - the problem is we live in a free society, and that scares people who can't deal with the responsibilities of freedom. Illegal immigrants aren't the problem - criminals exploiting the vulnerabilities inherent in a free society are the problem. And you solve the problem by going after the criminals, not by locking down the free society, be it through immigration or national ID cards. Your 'solution' is not only too simple-minded, but further imposes restrictions of freedom in an increasingly oppressive society.
Get them using only Windows in school and watch what they will ask for at home.
And the worst part about it is that they're doing it by making vague legal statements that threaten and coerce schools into doing MS's bidding. Schools have a tough enough time getting funding for things like new computers - now they're expected to turn away free gifts because these gifts aren't in full compliance with MS's virulent OS license? Do Macs require you propagate their OS with a Mac machine?
It just seems like with all the resources MS has, it could do better than making vaguely threatening statements towards schools that are just trying to make ends meet. Oh wait, I forgot, there's a link to MS's Academic Volume "discount" at the bottom of the page. Scare the school admins by making them think "crap, are all our computers licensed?" and then conveniently provide 'em with a link where they can get kosher again, for a price. Very nice, indeed.
Hmm? Your wacky calculations bely your nick "physics genius." Using your calculations, I can produce just about any acceleration I choose, based on the choice of the "final velocity". I also think you fail to understand the difference between thrust and force - certainly insofar as the fact that your equation for "thrust" has units of frequency. Care to check your math? You also present velocities as accelerations - but I had to laugh.
Finally, you have to realize that nobody is trying to 'propel' nanobots - the idea is that they sweep along in whatever material (be it blood, water, air, whatever) they are suspended in. Even so, the kinetic energy imparted from the oxidation of a single atom of propellant, as you postulate, would not be sufficient to propel a nanobot at even a minute fraction of c. Please work that out for yourself, but check your math this time.:)
Slashdot Mirror
From the press statement:
Other terms of the IP license agreement were not disclosed.
So for all we know, Sony said "look, kid, here's a hundred bucks, go screw yourself, or we'll sue you to oblivion." Forgent spins this as the "second IP license" (who was the first?) to try to get other people to fall in line, and discloses nothing about the Sony deal because they don't want people to know that they're already up the creek.
In other words, don't assume that Forgent is on top, especially when the only source of information on the IP license comes from Forgent and contains no details of the agreement.
Listen to your fringe.. you'll hear the lunacy. Hell, listen to your congressbeings, cos there are just as many loopy loons on the left side of the aisle as there are on the right.
:) And nobody's saying there aren't wackos on both sides of the political spectrum - there may even be more on "my" side - but at least I can quote "your" wackos. :)
:)
So in other words, you can't post a reference. That's about what I thought.
Hahaha, you don't like being labelled? Well goddamn, you folks should have thought about that before you went apeshit with them on everyone. Turnabout is fair play.
Where do you get that from? I just thought you used 'militant' in a strange manner. Label away, see if I care.
Sheesh.
After all, according to their own diatribes, if you don't give money and support to PBS and the Dems, you're killing children.
:)
Funny, I'm a 'militant' (what, like I shoot people?) liberal and haven't heard that one, yet. Care to post a reference? Just for laughs' sake, if nothing else.
But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
.sig...do you mind? :)
:)
Damn, that's funny. Sounds like a great
Individual users can still own, share, and make JPG, it's just the programs they use (or more accurately, the people who make that software) that will be liable for licensing fees.
I see your point. This isn't going to kill home users at all, but HP's not gonna be happy.
They DO care about the very large companies that use JPEG compression in thier products, simply because if the patent holds up (I have no idea how valid or invalid it appears to be) those same very large companies will be in hock to the tune of a lot of $$$ to the patent holders.
:)
Exactly - and what we have is a no-name, two-bit company that hocks video "solutions" and scheduling software that's trying to patent the JPG format to squeeze money from companies that use JPG. Names like HP, Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Kodak, etc. spring to mind. They'll need good lawyers indeed to ramrod this patent through all the lawsuits.
Remember - none of these big names were directly affected by the Unisys/GIF nonsense, because the GIF format wasn't bundled in with their hardware. The big boys have a much more invested in this bout of patent (double entendre! hah!) nonsense.
That's 300,000 m/s, not km/s. So, that's 300 km/s
:)
Nope, c = 3e8 m/sec, or 300000 km/sec. Check your friendly physics 101 book for more info.
*snort* what is the sound of millions of people flipping these guys off? Most people ignore the GIF compression threats - now we're supposed to fear for JPG suits? What about all the scanners out there whose default settings are to create JPG images? How about the thousands upon thousands of on-line amateur photographers whose thumbnails are in JPG format?
Let's face it: it was tough to change people's minds to use PNG instead of GIF. Do they really think they're going to make headway suing people for using JPG images? From the article:
"We wanted to ensure the investment community and the general public are clear about the terms of our valuable JPEG data compression technology, one of the many technologies we have in our patent portfolio," stated Richard Snyder, chairman and chief executive officer at Forgent. "We are in ongoing discussions with other manufacturers of digital still cameras, printers, scanners and other products that use JPEG technology for licensing opportunities."
Like I said, best of luck. I'd love to see this guy get his ass handed to him by the very large companies who use JPG compression.
What if some lost Three Stooges scripts were found, who would want to see some latter day
:)
imitators?
As long as the three guys performing the sketch were boy-band members, and none of the punches were pulled, I would!
Oopsie...read that again...
:) I agree that the pro-medias are great speakers, but when you really want good quality at a low price, it's much better to get headphones, and as somebody's already mentioned, your neighbors will love you for it as well. :)
For just $20 the Koss KTX-PRO (also called the Optimus Titanium 35 Pro at Radio Shack) headphones will get you better sound than hundreds, if not thousands of dollars of amps and speakers.
(emphasis mine)
And the grandparent post is right: it's much, much easier to produce fantastic quality sound from headphones than from a speaker set, and for much less money.
Now if you can find me a set of $20 speakers that sound better then those klipsch pro-media 5.1 -- i will print out this post and eat it.
Does that apply if the speakers are connected to a headset?
From the article:
:)
Touching Italians is fine, but you must never, ever tell them how to use a product.
I tried this with the local Italian, and believe me, I'd be much better off if I'd just told him how the microwave works.
Piracy is wrong because it continues to feed the unvalanced system.
:)
Heh...you said 'unvalanced system.' I think we all agree it'd be a nicer system without Jack Valance.
No, no, no...my argument is that since the Venusian albedo is twice that of the Earth, the fact that Venus receives 1.9 times the solar energy of the Earth makes no difference for the effective surface temperature. Read my post again, and I apologize if that wasn't clear. What I'm stating is that the fact that Venus is at 0.72 AU has no effect on the surface temperature being warmer, as it stands presently.
Beyond that there is the question of atmospheric genesis. That Venus has an albedo ~twice that of Earth manifestly demonstrates divergent atmospheric evolutions. The differentiation in the magnitude of the solar flux at 0.72 vs. 1.00 AU in this divergence of atmospheric genesis is necessarily a first order factor. In the early solar system planetary bodies were very much hotter that they currently are. Ergo, the higher solar flux at 0.72 AU in ALL likelihood had a VERY significant impact on the chemical genesis of the Venusian atmosphere.
This is a more interesting point - it is possible (and realistically likely) that, early in the formation of the Venusian atmosphere, the additional solar radiation received by Venus allowed the precipitation of a runaway CO2 effect. All this shows, however, is that given a sufficient amount of greenhouse gas and solar radiation, a positive-feedback mechanism can occur. This 'runaway' effect will eventually stabilize as heavier and heavier atmospheric species are vaporized - on Venus, the runaway greenhouse stopped with the formation of clouds of SO2, which provide sufficient planetary albedo to stabilize the IR warming of the abundant CO2 present.
Finally:
This leaves us with the real question here.
Can anthropogenic greenhouse gasses effect the chemical composition of the Terrestrial atmosphere to the degree that its composition reflects (;D) that of the Venusian atmosphere.
I think the real real question here is this: can anthropogenic gases affect the chemical composition of the Terrestrial atmosphere to the degree that its radiative properties reflect that of the Venusian atmosphere.
Remember, the primary greenhouse gas on Earth is water vapor. The Venusian atmosphere is composed of some 82 bars of CO2. Earth contains a roughly similar mass of H2O, but we keep in it our oceans, not in our atmosphere.
So there remain two key elements to understanding a 'runaway' greenhouse effect: One, what initial temperature perturbation is necessary to initiate a runaway feedback loop as described above. Two, what is the effect of increased water vapor on high cloud/low cloud cover? This will further modify the radiative properties of the atmosphere, through increases in albedo, and will either permit or negate a positive feedback reaction to occur. Naturally, the second point is one we fail to understand at present.
Regardless, is has been postulated that a sufficient increase in CO2 due to anthropogenic sources (perhaps as little as a few tens of ppmv more, say) would be sufficient to trigger a water vapor feedback event, or the famous 'runaway' greenhouse effect. We don't need Venusian quantities of CO2 for a runaway event: we only need enough to trigger a runaway event with the radiatively interactive chemical species we do have enough of, namely, water. And we do not sufficiently understand either point one or two well enough to know the answer to these questions.
Personally, I find the likelihood of a 'runaway' greenhouse event to be phenominally small, and the 'runaway' event to be largely unnecessary hype. What I do care about is the effect of even a slight warming - just a few degrees Celsius can have a dramatic impact on the climate. Regardless, it's not so much the orbital parameters as it is the chemical concentrations that determine the greenhouse effect, as I hope we've shown to the three people still reading this thread.
While Venus has an exposed surface area that is 0.9 times that of Earth, it receives a flux density 1.93 times that of Earth, thus as 1.93 * 0.9 = 1.74 then Venus receives ~ 3/4 more energy from the Sun than does the Earth.
...at top-of-atmosphere. You're still not accounting for the fact that the Venusian albedo is 0.65 - nearly twice that of the Earth (albedo = 0.37). Reflected solar energy does not contribute to the radiative balance of an atmosphere.
Just for old times' sake, I pulled out my calculations for surface effective temperature based on TOA incident radiation and albedo. Using NASA values for the Venusian TOA solar flux and albedo (see this link for the numbers - which confirm (as did my own calculations) that the incident solar flux at TOA of Venus is indeed 1.9 times that of the Earth) I compute using the standard equivalent blackbody temperature formula (e.g. Salby, eq. 1.30.2) that the effective temperature of Venus is 252 K (note that the NASA 'blackbody' temperature is not the effective blackbody temperature because we want to use the visual geometric albedo for shortwave calculations, not the bond value).
The equivalent blackbody temperature for Earth is ~255 K. Thus we see the importance of the greenhouse effect - not only does the chemical composition of Venus provide a ~500 K greenhouse warming, but the Earth undergoes an approximate 30 K warming itself, due to water vapor absorption and re-emission in the IR band. Therefore, anything that modifies the ambient surface water vapor budget (such as a slight warming due to CO2 increases, for example) will affect the Earth's 'natural' greenhouse effect. We would do well to understand this phenomenon completely before deciding that anthropogenic emission of CO2 plays no role in global warming. Regardless of all this, we see that the TOA solar fluxes are not the dominant term in the simple radiative budget, as the albedo contributes equally to the equation, and can trivially negate any solar 'advantage' that Venus would have over its more distant solar neighbors.
References: Salby, M.L., 1996: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics. Academic Press, 627 pp.
Works great if you're on Venus, BOTOH Venus has the most circular orbit of any planet in the Solar System not an insignificant factor.
Hmm...IIRC, Earth's orbital eccentricity is only 0.0167 - pretty darn near circular. Besides which, orbital eccentricity plays essentially no role in determining mean characteristics - if it did, the Northern hemisphere winter would be warmer than Southern hemisphere winters, since Earth's perihelion falls during December. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.
More importantly Venus lies at a distance of 0.72 AU from the Sun. Thus with the inverse square law Venus receives approximately 1.3 times as much energy as the Earth, i.e. 30% more energy from the Sun as the Earth. This is VERY significantly in the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus.
You forgot to mention that Venus is smaller - it's mean radius is some 300km less than that of the Earth's. By my calculations, it therefore intercepts by area only 90% of what the Earth receives. Granted it's more 'dense' (per steradian) energy, but it almost balances out. Furthermore, the fact that Venus is entirely covered by clouds lead to a very high planetary albedo, which drastically reduces the amount of solar radiation the surface recieves. I remember calculating the Venusian effective surface temperature based on orbital characteristics as an undergrad - it came out to be pretty close to Earth's, IIRC. The dominant factor in Venus' hellishly hot temperature, therefore, is not due to its orbital characteristics, but rather its chemical composition.
Trying to assert that any build up of greenhouse gases on Earth due to humanity will cause Earth to develop anything remotely like the atmospheric conditions on Venus in complete nonsense.
Why do you say this? I doubt you could realistically support this argument. Were Earth to undergo a sufficiently strong positive cloud feedback, it would be entirely possible to achieve a runaway greenhouse effect. Where do you get your science from - your own calculations, or the TV?
Thanks for the compliment, but remember my main point: we don't know if we're teetering on the edge yet, because we don't understand the role clouds play. It's perfectly possible that an increase in global mean temperature will lead to an increase in high cloud cover, which tends to negate the greenhouse warming of CO2. The real problem is we don't know what's going to happen - we just don't understand the climate system well enough yet.
:) Thanks for the insightful reply - it's a shame people don't get karma for posting when they actually understand what the thread's about. :)
Hampering the problem are posts like the guy that replied to your post - people who don't realize a cloud albedo feedback/radiative transfer budget topic, and instead post nonsense about anthropogenic gases.
The compositional change in the atmosphere (mostly how much CO2 is present) could theoretically be balanced by changes in the cloud balance (% of clouds to land area.) This would affect the albedo. I have seen research on this presenting solid evidence that the amount of cloudage has increased in the last few decades (the range of good global data.)
:)
:)
You are absolutely correct - however, the changes in cloud cover could also increase global warming effect, depending on the cloud-top height. The albedo changes are important, of course, and cloud-cover is cloud-cover, as far as shortwave (solar) radiation is concerned, but the effect on global temperatures is based on the balance of the shortwave and the longwave (e.g. terrestrial longwave radiation.) And the type of cloud (low or high) changes the longwave effects.
For example, low clouds, such as marine stratocumulus, radiate at approximately the same blackbody temperature as does the earth's surface, leading to no real net change in the surface IR budget of the planet, while reducing SW absorption by the surface (due to the increase in albedo, as you have correctly stated.) High clouds (such as cumulonimbus anvil cirrus) OTOH, radiate at a much, much colder IR temperature than do their low-altitude counterpart, and as such, contribute a net warming under the right circumstances to the net radiative budget. The type of cloud, composition, height, and thickness of the cloud all contribute to the cloud radiative forcing, and depending on the mix of these variables, can either negate global warming entirely, or enhance it in a runaway event. And the sad part is, we just don't know exactly which feedback mechanism is more likely.
The fact that the globe has gotten cloudier (according to empirical evidence) is interesting in itself - but whether it's a good thing or not, we don't know yet.
Actually, I believe the biggest effect of global warming (at least a few degrees) is the rise in sea level due to ice cap melting, not single area warming or cooling.
Again, correct. I wish people would focus on this and not any assumed microclimate changes.
Heh...yeah, I knew all of that - and you might want to check out the Bitter Films webpage, because you can, in fact, buy the 'Rejected' short on DVD. My friend has a copy, and also likes chimpanzees, and also occasionally reads /., which is why I posted: I think the parent post of my original post (confused? I am! :) is actually my 'Rejected'-fan, chimp-loving friend, who also coincidentally works for HP. Sorry about the confusion!
:) Thanks for the info, though!
And it's odd how certain natural disasters get coverage, while others go unmentioned. I had to say that, just to keep this somewhat on topic.
Hey, waitaminute...'termchimp' nick, 'my spoon is too big' sig...you wouldn't happen to be an HP engineer, would you?
Kind of, but not really. Check out this link to see why.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 of the US Code first defines what fair use is, and then states that for these cases (which fall under the definition of fair use) that use of the copyrighted work doesn't infringe on the copyright. You're technically right about fair use not being protected by law per se, but your post implies that it's only a judicial precedent. It's not - it's a clearly defined escape clause in copyright usage.
Of course, IANAL, YMMV, ROLLIN HAND, but it's worth noting that there already exists a "concept of fair use" in the law. Legislation like the DMCA usually comes about when people don't know and/or understand the laws they already have.
Right, it sounds like a troll, but that line of questioning does make sense:
(a) If the computers are donated with an O/S on them, then nobody at the school agreed to an EULA.
Just the other day, there was a story somewhere that was posted to Slashdot about this situation. Basically, the gist of it was that Microsoft has set "guidelines" for school systems accepting donated PCs, wherein MS says that even donated PCs are legally bound to their original EULA, and if the requisite materials are not included with the donated PC (such as manuals, install disks, COAs, etc.) then the school should not accept the donation. Complete horseshit, of course, but it looks as though MS is setting themselves up to squeeze a few more licensing dollars out of us all by going after our schools, now.
Anybody else surprised at this? First the set-up, then the attack on a sacrificial goat conveniently located to MS HQ. Jeez.
This sounds more like Nazi Germany or Maoist China than the US.
:)
I would agree, and I'll have to go look up the article. For God's sake, I hope it's a mistake, but the way the DOJ is run now, I'm afraid it might not be. Whatever the case, that guy's civil rights were violated, and there's no excuse for that. This is where the "we'll do anything to stop the terrorists" argument comes all-the-way apart.
God I hope you're lying.
I'm guessing this is the guy I replied to, since his inability to reason cogently is well-balanced by the fact that he posts AC when he wants to talk some shit. Chicken. :)
And as far as I'm concerned, we have a couple hundred thousand criminals here who have no business being here. If you don't like our laws and find them oppressive, I suggest you either find a way to change them or leave.
Remember, they're only criminals because we make 'em out that way now. A hundred years ago, they weren't 'criminals' - they were 'New Americans'. And I wonder if all the shit that goes down isn't a result of our inability (or rather, your inability) to cope with new people, and the ideas they bring with them. Just a thought.
And as for finding a way to change laws - well, they'd have to become legalized citizens to vote and do that. But have you looked at how tough it is to get naturalized nowadays? It's not just memorize the Pledge of Allegiance and sign a few forms - it's a difficult, nasty, brutish process that favors wealthy people with the means to process all the paperwork and support themselves in the meantime. "Illegal" immigrants are those who can't support their family for a year-and-a-half (which is about what it takes) while waiting for the clodhoppers at INS to pull their thumbs out and do their job. And because they prefer working for shit wages (usually less than minimum wage, because hey, they're illegal - who will they complain to?) to whatever hellhole country they just left, they do it, and become 'criminals' in the mind of half-witted retards such as yourself.
Think about that - these people think that America is so great that they're willing to come over, earn half of nothing and get treated like less-than-human slime from some uppity asshole. Not because they're dumb, but because in spite of all the shit these immigrants have to put up with, it's still better than wherever they came from. That should make you proud that the U.S. is doing something right - torturing Canadians notwithstanding.
On the positive side, I got enough +1 mods to put me at the karma cap for dusting your sorry arguments off, so thanks! And next time, you'll get more respect (and less flamage) if you'll find your balls and post under your real name, ok?
Is the right of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to be here now considered an "essential liberty"?
Funny, there was a time when there was no illegal immigration - everybody was welcome. Personally, I find that the right to travel wherever my feet take me is indeed an essential liberty, and I'm sure the Framers thought likewise. But it would seem that those who prefer a false sense of security to God-given freedoms followed the patriots to America and set up shop.
People have used that phrase to justify alot, and frankly, I'm not buying it this time either.
Justify what? The granting of freedoms? Actually, the only time that phrase gets mentioned is when people attempt to take away liberties we already have. What are you talking about, exactly?
Toss out everyone who is here illegally, and we wouldn't have need of this crackpot National ID card.
Riiight...it's those damn furriners who are causing all the trouble. Except, of course, for Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski, the KKK, etc. PC has nothing to do with it, pal - the problem is we live in a free society, and that scares people who can't deal with the responsibilities of freedom. Illegal immigrants aren't the problem - criminals exploiting the vulnerabilities inherent in a free society are the problem. And you solve the problem by going after the criminals, not by locking down the free society, be it through immigration or national ID cards. Your 'solution' is not only too simple-minded, but further imposes restrictions of freedom in an increasingly oppressive society.
Get them using only Windows in school and watch what they will ask for at home.
:)
And the worst part about it is that they're doing it by making vague legal statements that threaten and coerce schools into doing MS's bidding. Schools have a tough enough time getting funding for things like new computers - now they're expected to turn away free gifts because these gifts aren't in full compliance with MS's virulent OS license? Do Macs require you propagate their OS with a Mac machine?
It just seems like with all the resources MS has, it could do better than making vaguely threatening statements towards schools that are just trying to make ends meet. Oh wait, I forgot, there's a link to MS's Academic Volume "discount" at the bottom of the page. Scare the school admins by making them think "crap, are all our computers licensed?" and then conveniently provide 'em with a link where they can get kosher again, for a price. Very nice, indeed.
Have mod points, would rather post rants. D'oh!
Hmm? Your wacky calculations bely your nick "physics genius." Using your calculations, I can produce just about any acceleration I choose, based on the choice of the "final velocity". I also think you fail to understand the difference between thrust and force - certainly insofar as the fact that your equation for "thrust" has units of frequency. Care to check your math? You also present velocities as accelerations - but I had to laugh.
:)
Finally, you have to realize that nobody is trying to 'propel' nanobots - the idea is that they sweep along in whatever material (be it blood, water, air, whatever) they are suspended in. Even so, the kinetic energy imparted from the oxidation of a single atom of propellant, as you postulate, would not be sufficient to propel a nanobot at even a minute fraction of c. Please work that out for yourself, but check your math this time.