Too much we focus on the nay sayers, sometimes they are correct, but many times they are not. How many times were people told you couldn't fly, dive beneath the ocean, or go to the moon. All of which were wrong. Not only that, but the amount of injuries and deaths to get to those points is absolutely stagering and would not be tolerated in todays society.
Yet those things are what we define as great moments in our history.
Just because those things are decried by some people doesn't mean they are, in fact, impossible.
*shrug* we need to keep a balance in things, spending 3 trillion on a perpetual motion machine isn't exactly good money spent, but there are a myriad of projects that get a bad rep because a few (or even more than a few) names say it is impossible.
While I absolutely agree with what you say about pixar/disney relationship now, I seriously doubt Walt Disney would have been happy with it. Nor do I think that if Walt was alive would they need to be doing what they are doing (kinda the opposite of the prisoners dilemma, if both sides are honest, moral, and care about each other no need to backstab about it).
Say what you will about todays current Disney (of which I am no fan) but the Disney of those days, and Walt's ideas, are probably much closer to the general idea of slashdot these days (that is, the art is very important and commercial concerns are only important when necessary).
Not only that, but we have two other great sources to figure this one out. One is that grammer and certain words have changed meaning. At the time the militia was every able bodied male (and female, but they weren't required to fight). In several states where the laws have not changed everyone is still in the militia. In the state I live in (Tennessee) there is no bar to entering the militia, you simply agree that you will defend the state from invaders - no training, no test, etc.
Second we can see what is said in the federalist papers which are quite clear that it is an individual right.
This argument is like one I have seen proposed several times that individuals do not have a right to free speech, only the press does and you have to be a registered member of the press to have free speech.
Well, you can blame that one on our crappy educational system. The only reason I heard anything other than Bohr's model outside of college chemistry is because I had an AP chemistry teacher that cared.
One of the worst things our US educational system (and maybe others, I don't know) do is teach theories and models that are *known* to be out of date as The Way Things Are. Especially when the most current accepted theory isn't any more difficult.
No reason to make fun of you, I don't know why you would think so.
Even given the ability to modify the binary I would say it would be very hard to get malicious code put in that gives the same MD5 checksum as what the original is. Then again it wouldn't surprise me if they never did an MD5 on the binary.
You are mistaken. You wrongly assume that I was analyzing the argument in your post, when I was just lightly poking fun at you.
I understood this, it was just you were the first to reply and it was exceedingly stupid.
However, to please you, I will destroy the central part of your argument, which is the false analogy of crack and MP3s. Crack is an illegal substance that is documented to hurt the individual user, those around him, and the community. Mp3s are not illegal, and whether they hurt the individual user, those around him, and the community in general is an opinion and not one backed up by any real facts.
"Ahh," you say, "I'm not talking about just any Mp3s, but unathorized copies of MP3s." Unfortunately for you, your analogy breaks down further here. Possesion of crack is illegal. Possesion of an unauthorized MP3 is not illegal. Frankly, a better analogy would be comparing MP3 to stolen ice cream, but eben that is problematical.
Except that possesion of a stolen item (ice cream not excluded) is illegal, in fact it is criminally illegal. Copyright violation isn't criminally illegal, but is civilly.
Lets put it this way, would you go and tell the RIAA "Hey, i'm and live at and I have MP3's from music I never payed for!" No, you wouldn't, because the RIAA has the authority, should they choose, to sue you for comyright infringement and get punative damages from you - thus possesion is illegal. Fair use, which isn't written in law but is genereally accepted, doesn't cover downloading MP3's from someone else or copying from a friend.
Telling someone to go do something illegal isn't legal, telling someone how to do something illegal is legal. Though there is a fine line between the two and it is mostly up to the judge or jury to decide which you are doing. An add agency can't run a billboard for the cheapest crack cocaine in town at 1313 mockingbird lane, and neither can you.
Now for your supplementary argument that "There is no right to express the cheapest places to purchase crack in an attempt to sell the controlled substance - hence intent is important." Firstly, you are factually wrong; it is legal to express the cheapest place to purchase crack.
If your intent is to sell me crack by doing that then it is illegal, people have been arrested for such a thing here. I do not know if it is a felony or misdemeanor (I would assume the latter).
This is just like the cases a few years back where someone followed a books instructions on how to make silencers, kill people, and hide evidence. The book makers were not found criminally guilty. several were found civilly guilty and forced to pay restitution because it was obvious to the jury that the intent of the book was how to kill people, and thus illegal. The other books listed the same info but in an "informative" way, such as the quote you said above about purchasing crack, and thus were not liable - and therefore legal.
Uh, yeah, the CRACK STORE. That's where I buy all my crack. When I feel like some heroin, I go to the HEROIN STORE.
You may want to read up on logic as this is what is refered to as an ad-hominem attack. If I said "the street corner where they buy crack" vs "crack store" it doesn't make a difference.
I must have been asleep in civics class when the covered how Ice Cream fits into the Bill of Rights. Which amendment was that? The "right to bear double scoops" one, right?
I would suppose that the right to express where to purchase cheap ice cream would be covered by the first amendment. At the very least if it was made illegal to say where to purchase it, the first amendment would pretty much cover that. There is no right to express the cheapest places to purchase crack in an attempt to sell the controlled substance - hence intent is important.
Is it clear? Wouldn't it be funny if you actually went to the site and found out it wasn't what you thought it was?
Wouldn't it be funny if you had an actuall argument? So far we have seen that I didn't use the correct slang for the place to purchase crack, that there is no right to bear double scoops, and you think the article says something else. All of which has little to do with the central thesis that intent is supposed to be relevent in these types of cases (which was a direct repsonse to the parent post). And lastly you throw in some name calling without any substance (which is once more ad-hominem) to prove some point that you never express.
The only way you could have made a more malformed argument is to accuse me of being wrong because I mispelled many words.
I always understood it to be more the lines of intent. If you intend to stand at the corner of a school and get kids to buy crack by telling them to go to the store then it is illegal. If you tell them where to go buy ice cream ral cheap and it just so happens that the place also sells crack then it is not. Or at least that is what the founding fathers meant - which we have drifted quite a bit in the last 50 or so years from that.
I do not know what aulstailian law says on this, or if this is even the case anymore in the US.
It is clear that the site was linking to copyrighted MP3 websites for the purpose of downloading them. I would imagine under US law this would be illegal. Google, OTOH, only runs a bot to index things and isn't trying to peddle in music piracy. Though once more I have no idae about aussie law (and not being a lawyer only what I understand it to be in the US, which could be wrong). Deep linking with the expressed intent of music piracy is also wrong (saying "Hey, go look here for a list of sites" isn't really different from "here is a list of sites" and would get you no place ih the courts)
If it is illegal to pirate music then what they did should be illegal (though I am among the crowd that doesn't think it should be illegal, that is different from what the current laws are).
I am assuming that there is a real question in there, not just a joke.
HP calc's rule the engeneering markets. My father, a land surveyor, can use pretty much no other calculator - the TI's don't have the flexibility, ruggedness, and software to do the job (they rule the college market though). Even at the speed of the 49 it could still take upwards of 2-3 minutes for a in-the-field calculation (and the lack of external cards really hampered its usefulness so no one used them). Once in the office even our pII-333 still takes a few minutes for several calculations (though a modern machine would spit it out almost instantly).
Since HP quit making a calculator with an external rom card (the 48gx) surveyors, and many engeneers, had switched to the palm top computers, then they went away they were replaced by PDA which didn't have the interface or the processing power for many of the things expected so they dropped out of favor.
Most surveyors nowadays pray to the gods of "please don't break" over thier stash of 48gx's otherwise they will have to move to a full laptop or a proprietary handheld (that costs as much as the laptop but is rugged for field work). I know my father, for one, will be VERY happy at this news.
Well, to be fair, if they intend to sell short they are banking on SCO's stock having a drastic drop soon (Good Thing). Though the way they bought stock they come out ahead either way, just better if they sell short.
I doubt microsoft. While, according to this they are in the top ten money movers at about 500 million, that pales in comparison to Vulcan Ventures ~1.7 billion.
Now baystar, being an investment firm, may be acting on behalf of microst in investing thier money, but Microsfot hardly controls them. The accusation could be true for any investment firm that purchases stock.
Most likely this is an investment firm planning to sell short and make a quick buck without a big amount of risk. Had this really been microsoft or baystar attempting to give SCO the funding to pursue a legal attack on linux 50 million is peanuts.
Well, to be fair, the ASCII project is guarded by guys with guns not because of the machines but what is on those machines. I doubt VT is going to be running classified nuclear weapon simulations on thier cluster. If they do then they will have the guys with guns around them also.
Well, usually in cases such as this you do not need the whole map (or tree I would actually assume), you only need to calculate the relevent parts. The first few moves *dramiatically* reduce the search space - though it is still very very large. Nor should you have to know the entire tree as many of the moves are stupid, once it is realised that a particular branch is stupid no more traversing it. The problem is still quite large and computationally difficult though, just not so hard that you need more storage than there are atoms in the universe.
The hollywood version *was* over romantasized - let me quote the signifigant line from you:
IF ANYTHING IT UNDERSTATED IT!!!!!
That is what most people (though I can not speak for the original poster) mean when they say this. They left out much of the terrible stuff - which, ironically, made it even more impressive what he accomplished. But I guess they prefer the sanitised version of everything *shrug*
Another popular movie that suffers from this is "Forrest Gump" - the book was relativly depressing, though I also enjoyed both movies.
As far as the ADHD thing, I've known many people who were diagnosed with it, IMO only one really had it (he acted very different from the rest of the people). It seems to be a blanket diagnosis for bad behaviour.
I believe in the state I live in (Tennessee) it must be a known trespass or occupation of the land for any short (both 7 or 11 depending on what type of traspass you are talking of and how strong your claim is to the land) amount of time. I think something like 25 or 50 years is needed for simply squatting.
I don't know what the law is on abandoned property though, how one would go about claiming it as thier own.
But I am pretty sure copyright is completely different than a physical possesion according to the law anyway.
Re:NDAs are a necessary evil to some environments
on
The Cult of the NDA
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Sell shit. Make money. Be happy.
Words to live by. This, along with advice my mother was given, have shapped my life. "Never produce anything you would not buy yourself", those two combined and you have ethical business, one that has a good balance between shareholder/owner optimisation and consumer consience. I really wish most companies out there followed said advice. Unfortunatly, for any economic system I have heard of, maximising profits (or market gains, depending on economic systems) in the short term seems to work, you drive all competition from the market and leave yourself the only player.
In the long run many small businesses that adhere to the above two statements win, but it may take a VERY long run, depending on the market.
I suspect, but am not sure, that a lot of it is because old documents were handwritten. The only legal documents I have been around that were old and handwritten were property deeds, so it may not be universal.
In land surveying everything handwritten is written in capital leters for readability. People tend to take more time with capitals than with lower case. It is amusing trying to get my father to type surveying documents any other way than all caps (and all the other surveyors I used to have to deal with), though normal documents he types in normal mixed case.
Hmm, what? I agree there (was the above post meant to disagree with me?) - that just wasn't the answer to the question asked (what would happen to the oceans).
I basically said the same thing you said to someone else below. Nothing now is extreme - people worry about how a non-extreme setting is going to affect everything (usually with dire consequences). Usually those same people have no real idea how rapid or extreme differences have been in the past. Obviously something happened back then to cause both the cooling and subsequent heating. Obviously it wasn't us. It can be shown to have happened VERY rapidly. And, as you say, who knows why?
I ended my college career in CS (the geology depart had two professors leave, two die, and one half retire over a single summer pretty much killing the dept). Since then I worked for several years at a national lab in the cluster computing dept, many of the weather people ran thier codes on our clusters. It was amazing having them call and complain that the cluster is slow only to find out that they spawned all thier processes on the head node instead of across the 64 nodes (what - you mean I need to add machines to the virtual machine?). I always wondered how accurate thier models were after seeing that simple of a thing screwed up - even assuming that they actually understood the geological processes.
The ice is already in the water (ocean), so melting it is not going to increase the sea levels. Remember, water expands when it freezes and it goes back down when you melt it. If you don't believe me, fill a glass full of water and put it in the freezer.
The article seemed to imply that this was one of the ice masses that sits on land instead of floating in the water (many do) thus the level would increase. I do not know for sure and am too lazy too look it up for sure.
As the earth is still coming out of its last ice age, we shouldn't be too concerned about global warming. What we should be concerned about is desertification due to the lack of vegitation and depletion of the Ozone. Given the natural course of things, the earth will make big dinosaurs, not silly monkeys who play on computers and bitch at eachother.
well, I sorta agree - the article says they just know it was due to local heating (the area I live in has had two VERY mild summers in a row - we usually have at least a month of 105-110 degree weather - we haven't had a day above 98 in *two* years and average upper 80's to lwoer 90's, about 10 degrees cooler average). that being said many of the emissions aren't good for you - they aggrivate my chronic lung problems (probably cause them), kill off some more sensitive species, and many other things. I would advocate something in between what most seem to want (total reduction, do nothing).
As for the natural outgrowth being big dinno's - I don't really think so. The longest period with anything above single celled organisms (paleozoic) had fairly smallish creaturs - usually about the size of many of ours today - they died out (by far the largest extinction - well over 80 percent of *genuses* - one above species which the loss of a few many seem to think will destroy the earth - died out, though not that that is a good thing either). The next period had the giants - they died out. The only constant has been small bugs and down - they rule the earth, have for millions of years, and will for millions more. So this go around seems to be the silly monkeys bitching at each other as the top of the food chain.
No, but I did go through many years of geology and paleontology, so I can comment on what occured before. At one time there were almost no appreciable ice caps - the earth seemed to do pretty well during those times and survive (unless of course we are all zombies). Since we check temps during several of those periods by testing the amount of calcium carbonate deposited on the ocean floor (carbon dissolved into the ocean is an acid and dissolves calcium carbonate, temperature effects how much carbon can be dissolved in the water, thus average depth that it can dissolve the calcium carbonate is indicative of temps)I would also imagine that it would continue to do so this time around also.
I would suppose it would handle the same thing that has happened thousands of times the same way it has the other thousands of time regardless of who or what causes it (and it has happened faster than what we are seeing now well before humans existed). Note: that is not all life dies, all currents halt, all geologic processes halt, though they will most likely work somewhat differently.
Slashdot Mirror
Noooooooooooooooooo
You have invaded my perfectly laid little strawberry shortcake world where militaries all have a great bakeoff to see who will control the world!
DAMN YOU!!!!!
Great post.
Too much we focus on the nay sayers, sometimes they are correct, but many times they are not. How many times were people told you couldn't fly, dive beneath the ocean, or go to the moon. All of which were wrong. Not only that, but the amount of injuries and deaths to get to those points is absolutely stagering and would not be tolerated in todays society.
Yet those things are what we define as great moments in our history.
Just because those things are decried by some people doesn't mean they are, in fact, impossible.
*shrug* we need to keep a balance in things, spending 3 trillion on a perpetual motion machine isn't exactly good money spent, but there are a myriad of projects that get a bad rep because a few (or even more than a few) names say it is impossible.
While I absolutely agree with what you say about pixar/disney relationship now, I seriously doubt Walt Disney would have been happy with it. Nor do I think that if Walt was alive would they need to be doing what they are doing (kinda the opposite of the prisoners dilemma, if both sides are honest, moral, and care about each other no need to backstab about it).
Say what you will about todays current Disney (of which I am no fan) but the Disney of those days, and Walt's ideas, are probably much closer to the general idea of slashdot these days (that is, the art is very important and commercial concerns are only important when necessary).
Not only that, but we have two other great sources to figure this one out. One is that grammer and certain words have changed meaning. At the time the militia was every able bodied male (and female, but they weren't required to fight). In several states where the laws have not changed everyone is still in the militia. In the state I live in (Tennessee) there is no bar to entering the militia, you simply agree that you will defend the state from invaders - no training, no test, etc.
Second we can see what is said in the federalist papers which are quite clear that it is an individual right.
This argument is like one I have seen proposed several times that individuals do not have a right to free speech, only the press does and you have to be a registered member of the press to have free speech.
Both complete and utter bullshit.
I tell you what, after reading the list of people who seem to be wanting to ban it I would say they are wrong.
Something has to be off when the Patriot Act republicans and the anti-gun democrats vehemently agree on something.
Well, you can blame that one on our crappy educational system. The only reason I heard anything other than Bohr's model outside of college chemistry is because I had an AP chemistry teacher that cared.
One of the worst things our US educational system (and maybe others, I don't know) do is teach theories and models that are *known* to be out of date as The Way Things Are. Especially when the most current accepted theory isn't any more difficult.
No reason to make fun of you, I don't know why you would think so.
Even given the ability to modify the binary I would say it would be very hard to get malicious code put in that gives the same MD5 checksum as what the original is. Then again it wouldn't surprise me if they never did an MD5 on the binary.
No, the RIAA owns the copyrights and can distribute thier content in any way they wish.
Nor would the situation you described be them intentionally placing links on thier website for the express purpose of you downloading pirated music.
You are mistaken. You wrongly assume that I was analyzing the argument in your post, when I was just lightly poking fun at you.
I understood this, it was just you were the first to reply and it was exceedingly stupid.
However, to please you, I will destroy the central part of your argument, which is the false analogy of crack and MP3s. Crack is an illegal substance that is documented to hurt the individual user, those around him, and the community. Mp3s are not illegal, and whether they hurt the individual user, those around him, and the community in general is an opinion and not one backed up by any real facts.
"Ahh," you say, "I'm not talking about just any Mp3s, but unathorized copies of MP3s." Unfortunately for you, your analogy breaks down further here. Possesion of crack is illegal. Possesion of an unauthorized MP3 is not illegal. Frankly, a better analogy would be comparing MP3 to stolen ice cream, but eben that is problematical.
Except that possesion of a stolen item (ice cream not excluded) is illegal, in fact it is criminally illegal. Copyright violation isn't criminally illegal, but is civilly.
Lets put it this way, would you go and tell the RIAA "Hey, i'm and live at and I have MP3's from music I never payed for!" No, you wouldn't, because the RIAA has the authority, should they choose, to sue you for comyright infringement and get punative damages from you - thus possesion is illegal. Fair use, which isn't written in law but is genereally accepted, doesn't cover downloading MP3's from someone else or copying from a friend.
Telling someone to go do something illegal isn't legal, telling someone how to do something illegal is legal. Though there is a fine line between the two and it is mostly up to the judge or jury to decide which you are doing. An add agency can't run a billboard for the cheapest crack cocaine in town at 1313 mockingbird lane, and neither can you.
Now for your supplementary argument that "There is no right to express the cheapest places to purchase crack in an attempt to sell the controlled substance - hence intent is important." Firstly, you are factually wrong; it is legal to express the cheapest place to purchase crack.
If your intent is to sell me crack by doing that then it is illegal, people have been arrested for such a thing here. I do not know if it is a felony or misdemeanor (I would assume the latter).
This is just like the cases a few years back where someone followed a books instructions on how to make silencers, kill people, and hide evidence. The book makers were not found criminally guilty. several were found civilly guilty and forced to pay restitution because it was obvious to the jury that the intent of the book was how to kill people, and thus illegal. The other books listed the same info but in an "informative" way, such as the quote you said above about purchasing crack, and thus were not liable - and therefore legal.
Uh, yeah, the CRACK STORE. That's where I buy all my crack. When I feel like some heroin, I go to the HEROIN STORE.
You may want to read up on logic as this is what is refered to as an ad-hominem attack. If I said "the street corner where they buy crack" vs "crack store" it doesn't make a difference.
I must have been asleep in civics class when the covered how Ice Cream fits into the Bill of Rights. Which amendment was that? The "right to bear double scoops" one, right?
I would suppose that the right to express where to purchase cheap ice cream would be covered by the first amendment. At the very least if it was made illegal to say where to purchase it, the first amendment would pretty much cover that. There is no right to express the cheapest places to purchase crack in an attempt to sell the controlled substance - hence intent is important.
Is it clear? Wouldn't it be funny if you actually went to the site and found out it wasn't what you thought it was?
Wouldn't it be funny if you had an actuall argument? So far we have seen that I didn't use the correct slang for the place to purchase crack, that there is no right to bear double scoops, and you think the article says something else. All of which has little to do with the central thesis that intent is supposed to be relevent in these types of cases (which was a direct repsonse to the parent post). And lastly you throw in some name calling without any substance (which is once more ad-hominem) to prove some point that you never express.
The only way you could have made a more malformed argument is to accuse me of being wrong because I mispelled many words.
I always understood it to be more the lines of intent. If you intend to stand at the corner of a school and get kids to buy crack by telling them to go to the store then it is illegal. If you tell them where to go buy ice cream ral cheap and it just so happens that the place also sells crack then it is not. Or at least that is what the founding fathers meant - which we have drifted quite a bit in the last 50 or so years from that.
I do not know what aulstailian law says on this, or if this is even the case anymore in the US.
It is clear that the site was linking to copyrighted MP3 websites for the purpose of downloading them. I would imagine under US law this would be illegal. Google, OTOH, only runs a bot to index things and isn't trying to peddle in music piracy. Though once more I have no idae about aussie law (and not being a lawyer only what I understand it to be in the US, which could be wrong). Deep linking with the expressed intent of music piracy is also wrong (saying "Hey, go look here for a list of sites" isn't really different from "here is a list of sites" and would get you no place ih the courts)
If it is illegal to pirate music then what they did should be illegal (though I am among the crowd that doesn't think it should be illegal, that is different from what the current laws are).
I am assuming that there is a real question in there, not just a joke.
HP calc's rule the engeneering markets. My father, a land surveyor, can use pretty much no other calculator - the TI's don't have the flexibility, ruggedness, and software to do the job (they rule the college market though). Even at the speed of the 49 it could still take upwards of 2-3 minutes for a in-the-field calculation (and the lack of external cards really hampered its usefulness so no one used them). Once in the office even our pII-333 still takes a few minutes for several calculations (though a modern machine would spit it out almost instantly).
Since HP quit making a calculator with an external rom card (the 48gx) surveyors, and many engeneers, had switched to the palm top computers, then they went away they were replaced by PDA which didn't have the interface or the processing power for many of the things expected so they dropped out of favor.
Most surveyors nowadays pray to the gods of "please don't break" over thier stash of 48gx's otherwise they will have to move to a full laptop or a proprietary handheld (that costs as much as the laptop but is rugged for field work). I know my father, for one, will be VERY happy at this news.
Well, to be fair, if they intend to sell short they are banking on SCO's stock having a drastic drop soon (Good Thing). Though the way they bought stock they come out ahead either way, just better if they sell short.
Who controls BayStar?
I doubt microsoft. While, according to this they are in the top ten money movers at about 500 million, that pales in comparison to Vulcan Ventures ~1.7 billion.
Now baystar, being an investment firm, may be acting on behalf of microst in investing thier money, but Microsfot hardly controls them. The accusation could be true for any investment firm that purchases stock.
Most likely this is an investment firm planning to sell short and make a quick buck without a big amount of risk. Had this really been microsoft or baystar attempting to give SCO the funding to pursue a legal attack on linux 50 million is peanuts.
Well, you never know, they could know that thier claims are so ridiculous that a single taker is "satisfactory".
Well, to be fair, the ASCII project is guarded by guys with guns not because of the machines but what is on those machines. I doubt VT is going to be running classified nuclear weapon simulations on thier cluster. If they do then they will have the guys with guns around them also.
Well, usually in cases such as this you do not need the whole map (or tree I would actually assume), you only need to calculate the relevent parts. The first few moves *dramiatically* reduce the search space - though it is still very very large. Nor should you have to know the entire tree as many of the moves are stupid, once it is realised that a particular branch is stupid no more traversing it. The problem is still quite large and computationally difficult though, just not so hard that you need more storage than there are atoms in the universe.
The hollywood version *was* over romantasized - let me quote the signifigant line from you:
IF ANYTHING IT UNDERSTATED IT!!!!!
That is what most people (though I can not speak for the original poster) mean when they say this. They left out much of the terrible stuff - which, ironically, made it even more impressive what he accomplished. But I guess they prefer the sanitised version of everything *shrug*
Another popular movie that suffers from this is "Forrest Gump" - the book was relativly depressing, though I also enjoyed both movies.
As far as the ADHD thing, I've known many people who were diagnosed with it, IMO only one really had it (he acted very different from the rest of the people). It seems to be a blanket diagnosis for bad behaviour.
Man, and I though a 4 foot lead in skeet was hard to guess correctly, having to aim 20,000 miles ahead must be a bear.
I believe in the state I live in (Tennessee) it must be a known trespass or occupation of the land for any short (both 7 or 11 depending on what type of traspass you are talking of and how strong your claim is to the land) amount of time. I think something like 25 or 50 years is needed for simply squatting.
I don't know what the law is on abandoned property though, how one would go about claiming it as thier own.
But I am pretty sure copyright is completely different than a physical possesion according to the law anyway.
Sell shit. Make money. Be happy.
Words to live by. This, along with advice my mother was given, have shapped my life. "Never produce anything you would not buy yourself", those two combined and you have ethical business, one that has a good balance between shareholder/owner optimisation and consumer consience. I really wish most companies out there followed said advice. Unfortunatly, for any economic system I have heard of, maximising profits (or market gains, depending on economic systems) in the short term seems to work, you drive all competition from the market and leave yourself the only player.
In the long run many small businesses that adhere to the above two statements win, but it may take a VERY long run, depending on the market.
I suspect, but am not sure, that a lot of it is because old documents were handwritten. The only legal documents I have been around that were old and handwritten were property deeds, so it may not be universal.
In land surveying everything handwritten is written in capital leters for readability. People tend to take more time with capitals than with lower case. It is amusing trying to get my father to type surveying documents any other way than all caps (and all the other surveyors I used to have to deal with), though normal documents he types in normal mixed case.
Hmm, what? I agree there (was the above post meant to disagree with me?) - that just wasn't the answer to the question asked (what would happen to the oceans).
I basically said the same thing you said to someone else below. Nothing now is extreme - people worry about how a non-extreme setting is going to affect everything (usually with dire consequences). Usually those same people have no real idea how rapid or extreme differences have been in the past. Obviously something happened back then to cause both the cooling and subsequent heating. Obviously it wasn't us. It can be shown to have happened VERY rapidly. And, as you say, who knows why?
I ended my college career in CS (the geology depart had two professors leave, two die, and one half retire over a single summer pretty much killing the dept). Since then I worked for several years at a national lab in the cluster computing dept, many of the weather people ran thier codes on our clusters. It was amazing having them call and complain that the cluster is slow only to find out that they spawned all thier processes on the head node instead of across the 64 nodes (what - you mean I need to add machines to the virtual machine?). I always wondered how accurate thier models were after seeing that simple of a thing screwed up - even assuming that they actually understood the geological processes.
The ice is already in the water (ocean), so melting it is not going to increase the sea levels. Remember, water expands when it freezes and it goes back down when you melt it. If you don't believe me, fill a glass full of water and put it in the freezer.
The article seemed to imply that this was one of the ice masses that sits on land instead of floating in the water (many do) thus the level would increase. I do not know for sure and am too lazy too look it up for sure.
As the earth is still coming out of its last ice age, we shouldn't be too concerned about global warming. What we should be concerned about is desertification due to the lack of vegitation and depletion of the Ozone. Given the natural course of things, the earth will make big dinosaurs, not silly monkeys who play on computers and bitch at eachother.
well, I sorta agree - the article says they just know it was due to local heating (the area I live in has had two VERY mild summers in a row - we usually have at least a month of 105-110 degree weather - we haven't had a day above 98 in *two* years and average upper 80's to lwoer 90's, about 10 degrees cooler average). that being said many of the emissions aren't good for you - they aggrivate my chronic lung problems (probably cause them), kill off some more sensitive species, and many other things. I would advocate something in between what most seem to want (total reduction, do nothing).
As for the natural outgrowth being big dinno's - I don't really think so. The longest period with anything above single celled organisms (paleozoic) had fairly smallish creaturs - usually about the size of many of ours today - they died out (by far the largest extinction - well over 80 percent of *genuses* - one above species which the loss of a few many seem to think will destroy the earth - died out, though not that that is a good thing either). The next period had the giants - they died out. The only constant has been small bugs and down - they rule the earth, have for millions of years, and will for millions more. So this go around seems to be the silly monkeys bitching at each other as the top of the food chain.
No, but I did go through many years of geology and paleontology, so I can comment on what occured before. At one time there were almost no appreciable ice caps - the earth seemed to do pretty well during those times and survive (unless of course we are all zombies). Since we check temps during several of those periods by testing the amount of calcium carbonate deposited on the ocean floor (carbon dissolved into the ocean is an acid and dissolves calcium carbonate, temperature effects how much carbon can be dissolved in the water, thus average depth that it can dissolve the calcium carbonate is indicative of temps)I would also imagine that it would continue to do so this time around also.
I would suppose it would handle the same thing that has happened thousands of times the same way it has the other thousands of time regardless of who or what causes it (and it has happened faster than what we are seeing now well before humans existed). Note: that is not all life dies, all currents halt, all geologic processes halt, though they will most likely work somewhat differently.