If widely used, the GPL3 will change that. It is explicitly and methodically being written to be as anti-business as possible. Software released under the GPL3 will be avoided by all companies for any purpose. FOSS will become a hobbiest ghetto, with no commercial potential even for commercially useful software.
... Realistically, MS will continue to fan the flames of confusion over the legal fuzziness of FOSS, slowing down the spread of good software....
As an aerospace engineer, I'm glad they are reverting to the apollo 'stack' concept. It is safer than the shuttle, in theory...
Who's theory? I assume you've done a fault tree analysis? In comparing other launch systems with the shuttle, I've found that the theoretical differences in safety are fairly insignificant. Don't give me the "it's got an escape system" if you're not going to talk about what flight envelopes it can be used in (That capsule wasn't designed to separate in atmosphere and once it does it's flying backwards) and what other flight and pre-launch risks such a system adds (some).
using existing hardware with a proven track record (and failure modes that have been documented and corrected).
What existing man-rated launcher are you planning to use?
I'm not saying there aren't engineering and efficiency advantages to expendable launch vehicles. There definitely are. Ability to send up equipment on a cheaper less reliable vehicle is a big one.
I just hate it when people pull "safety" out of their a**.
1.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
No. The total energy of charged particles impacting the upper atmosphere is tiny compared with the solar light energy Compare for example, the intensity of the aurora with the intensity of sunlight. Now add in the fact that the aurora covers a tiny fraction of the earths surface while sunlight blankets half of the earth at any time.
Even if it were a significant amount of energy, this energy is entirely absorbed by the atmosphere at altitudes above 60km. You would need to come up with a plausible mechanism for transporting this radiation down into the lower atmosphere without increasing the temperature of the stratosphere.
2.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is.
No, it isn't. The change on Jupiter is regional, not global. There is no indication that it is related to any solar phenomenon.
3.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is.
No, it isn't. Mars is losing CO2 ice near its South Pole. The most likely explanation is that large dust storms from recent years dumped some dust on the ice causing it to absorb sunlight and sublime. This sublimation may cause warming by increasing the CO2 and H2O content of the Martian atmosphere. This might feedback into causing more ice to evaporate. Since there isn't an active carbonate silicate cycle on Mars due to lack of liquid water, there is nothing to prevent this from occurring. So it's likely that the Martian climate experiences warming of this type in a cyclical manner, and that the warming will continue until something else stops it. For example the reduction in the temperature difference between the poles and the equatorial regions might slow the winds enough that the dust storms stop allowing increased precipitaion of CO2 onto the poles. There is no equivalent mechanism at work on Earth.
4.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20
However the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is more than 20 times longer than the residence time of methane.
[5.) What about the ice ages. We didn't cause them!]
But wait officer, there were forest fires before there were people. Therefore it couldn't have been my campfire that started it.
But wait officer, people can die without being murdered. Therefore it doesn't matter whether my fingerprints are on the gun.
[A pile of other pointless crap designed to confuse the issues deleted.]
Point 1 you could have gotten wrong just because you don't know anything about atmospheric science. The rest just puts you in the denial camp. Drop the political agenda for a while and see reality.
Yet another stupid and probably wrong conclusion by reporters and psychologists.
Might it be possible that people who drive in an aggressive manner are more likely to be attracted to driving games than people who drive in a defensive manner? Might that be a better explanation of the correlation than "driving video games make people drive in a risky manner?"
Even if it's something as simple as a parallel for loop and synchronized variables it would help immensely.
sync int total=0; par (i=0;i<100;i++) { int j=0;// Thread local, of course static int k;// Implied sync. DoSomething(i,&j); k++; total+=j; }// implied wait for thread completion
It'll even compile on old compilers with a "#define par for" and "#define sync".
Sorry fucktard - your "1-sigma" analysis is ignorant of the fact that Apollo had provisions for crew escape - in fact, for the whole command module to escape.
I was going to call you an idiot, but that's an insult to idiots. My analysis does include the escape system. Only about a third of potential loss of vehicle accidents offer any chance of survival even with the presence of the escape tower system. (Notice that it was 30 crew for 15 loss of vehicle events, that means that 5 of the LOV events were survivable. Or is multiplying 3 by 15 too hard for you?)
The escape tower does not help with reentry failures, failures in orbit, or catastropic failure near max-q (the most likely place for a structural failure during ascent). About the only thing it is really good for is loss of enough engines that orbit cannot be acheieved or catastropic failure at fairly low speed.
It only works in certain flight envelopes where aerodynamic loads would not still destroy the crew module or make parachute deployment impossible. The reentry system isn't designed for every possible reentry trajectory, and once you use the escape tower you've thrown away the engines you need to adjust your trajectory. If you use it at hypersonic speed in dense air, once the escape rockets are spent, you've got an unstable body pointing in the wrong direction. It won't stay that way for long before it turns into a pinwheel. I highly doubt that the reaction control system on Apollo could have stabilized it.
Before someone starts bemoaning how great and safe Apollo was compared to the shuttle, I'll say what everyone will subsequently ignore:
If the Apollo program had gone to 117 launches, the best (max likelyhood) estimate is that there would have been 15 loss of vehicle accidents with 30 crew lost. While the error in that estimate is large, there is no evidence that Saturn launch vehicles were any safer than the shuttle, and it's a better than 1-sigma bet that they would have been worse.
Finally, giving your notice at your current job is silly if you do not have a full written offer in hand, especially on a relocation type job. What if the company said, Nahh, we dont want to pay for your relocation?
Not only that, giving notice at your current job is probably not even necessary, depending upon where you live. In California at least, chances are 99% that you are an "at will" employee. What that means is your employer doesn't need to give you notice, and you don't need to give your employer notice. So there's never a need to rush into letting your employer know you're about to move along until everything is rock solid.
Frankly, I would tell their relo manager to take a long walk off a short pier, then call the recruiter to ask what kind of shit is he trying to pull and would he like to talk with my lawyer.
preferential tax treatment for reglious organizations
posting of religious symbols on public property
restrictions on abortion
restrictions on pornography
restrictions on private sexual conduct
undeclared wars
and corporate welfare
I agree that is what the license says. However, the GPLv2 does not anywhere, that I can see, allow you to prohibit distribution under another version, if you were granted that option, without
the consent of the copyright holder. You may choose to distribute under the terms of GPLv2, but that doesn't mean you can restrict distribution under GPLv3 if the source you received says "GPLv2 or later"
After all you are required to "keep intact all notices that refer to this license." That would include the portions that say "either version 2 of the license, or (at your option) any later version."
Removing "either" and ", or (at your option) any later version." would seem to violate that clause.
GPLv2 code could be merged with v2orlater code safely - it just needs to be released under v2.
I'm not sure that is true. The if the license terms of some code are "v2 or later" and someone tries to release it "v2 only" that's a violation of the original license. The license explicitly says that you may only distribute it by giving the recipient the same rights as you recieved. In other words, if you received the right to distribute the code under "v2 or later" you MUST give anyone who receives the code the right to distribute under "v2 or later." "v2 only" violates that license. You can't change the terms of the license without the consent of the copyright holder. In other words, it is the choice of the recipient as to which version of the GPL they choose to receive it under, but my understanding is that a redistributor cannot choose which license they distribute under. They must give the recipient the same terms (i.e. choice) that they had.
Only the copyright holder can choose to change those terms. If you don't hold the copyright you cannot change "v2 or later" to read "v3 or later" or to "v2 only".
assuming the Solaris code is not tainted in a manner that would preclude its inclusion in the Linux kernel and vice versa
If Sun chooses "GPL v3 or (at your option) any later version", that pretty much kills that possibility. Linus's choice of "GPL v2 and no other version" is not compatible with "GPL v3 or later." It's unclear to me whether "GPL v2 and no other version" is even compatible with "GPL v2 or later." Probably not, because by including "2 or later" code into a "only 2" product can't be done without changing the license terms of the "2 or later" code without the permission of the copyright holder.
People who voted for democrats thinking liberty would be restored should take notice. Only Libertarians truly stand for constitutionally protected freedoms!
If I had a dime for every "Libertarian" I've met who thought copyright and DRM were the best thing since sliced bread I could give Feinstein a large enough donation to make her withdraw her support for this one. As far as I can tell the Libertarian party is for just enough government to protect their business interests (i.e. copyright), but not so much government that it would prevent them from dumping industrial waste on their neighbors' property.
The best response is for everyone, Democrats, Republicans, Greens and Libertarians to write to their congress people and tell them that you won't vote for them during the next election if they support this. And then during the next election carry out your threat.
The only way this will be tested is if someone who has released source code under the BSD license files suit against someone who is redistributing it under other terms. I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. Until then, it's just speculation...
It's not about shutting down the internet, it's about controlling what could be used against your country or any other country for that matter.
What does blurring out portions of satellite photos buy you? Practically nothing. For every grenade lobbed over the wall into a millitary installation, ten car bombs hit police stations and markets. You don't need satellite photos to find them.
Insurgency and terrorism are predominantly a low tech game. No terrorist will go after a hard target when a soft one is available. And anyone who has visited California in October knows you only need about $200 and a trip to the hardware store to cripple the west coast with more damage than a 20 kiloton nuke could do. And shutting down Google Earth won't do a damn thing to stop it. Neither will anything else short of 24 hour curfews for everyone.
So let's give up our freedoms in order to prevent things that aren't going to happen. Then when the next attack occurs, we can at least take comfort in the fact that we forged our own chains.
Yep. Although comparing Feinstein to a Democrat is hardly fair. She makes Lieberman look like a pinko peacenik. It's too bad the Republicans didn't run a real person against her. But then again, why would they run a Republican against a Republican?
Please write a letter to your senators and representatives expressing your dismay. Let them know they are beholden to the voters, not to their donors, and that the voters won't put up with this crap.
This is Heritage Foundation crap. Only a true believer could think that it's acceptable for 13% of any group to experience hunger. Oh, I forgot, thanks to the current administration, we don't call it hunger anymore. It's now "inconsistent access to food."
Umm, yes they did. You have to watch your inclusions here. "v2 only" is a subset of "v2 or later". Also note that the "v2 or later" language is not actually part of the license (or a license type itself); it's just a phrase that is traditionally used to introduce the license in many releases.
Sorry, I think you're wrong about that.
GPL requires that the license terms (i.e. "version 2 or (at your option) any later version") be present in the copyright notice. If you don't own the copyright, you aren't allowed to change the licensing terms. Essentially, if people submitted code while the copyright notice read "v2 or later" you are allowed to distribute that code under v2, but you are not allowed to prohibit distribution under v3 or later. You can only do that to code you own.
It's difficult to overstate how strong the ramifications of that "or any later version" clause are. For all intents and purposes, including that clause when you license your code is the next best thing to assigning copyright of your code to the FSF, since it allows them to re-license your code as they see fit.
No it doesn't. The choice of license is up to the recipient not the distributor. Suppose have a piece of software that I wrote and distribute which is licensed under the "version 2 or (at your option) any later version" clause. Suppose the FSF releases GPL version 4 which states that the recipient must send $100 to the FSF in order to use the software. What person in their right mind, upon seeing "version 2 or (at your option) any later version" is going to choose GPL version 4? No one, that's who.
And as far as I can tell, no one at FSF can take code to which I own the copyright and modify my copyright notice to read "version 4 only." The GPL allows the recipient of software to choose the terms of a later version or the earlier version, but it does not allow the right to choose the earlier version to be restricted. Modification of the software is allows, modification of the licensing terms is not. Even if the GPL is changed to allow modification of the licensing terms, versions will still be available that say "version 2 or (at your option) any later version".
In order for your fears to become reality the copyright notice would need to read "only the most recent version."
But Los Alamos has some of the smartest and best people and has a lot of "real" tech.
But it's also one of the most boring places on the planet, especially for teens, as evidenced by high rates of teen suicide attempts and a very low teen pregnancy rate. It might be the one spot on the planet where a teen geek isn't even guaranteed a spot on the high school chess team.
My understanding of the U.S. tax code is that advertising revenues would not be considered non-profit income, and would therefore be subject to taxes, or worse would jeapordize the Wikimedia Foundation's non-profit status. That is precisely why we can't put Google ads on the SETI@home web page, and need to do things like putting links in our.sigs.
PBS stations walk the fine line between acknowledging their contributors and advertising for them.
From what I know of physics, ice sticks out of the water as much as the density of the ice is less than the water around it. (10% or so) So when the ice melts, shouldn't the sea level stay the exact same?
It would if the salinity of the water and the ice were the same. In this case the salinity of the ice is less than the salinity of the ocean. Lower salinity means lower density and lower volume. Melt the ice and the salinity of the ocean ends up lower, so the density ends up lower, and the volume increases, raising sea levels.
It's not as big an effect as it would be melting ice lying on land, but it is an effect.
It's temporarily offset by the effect of the ice cooling the surface waters (which makes them more dense), but that effect doesn't last. The salinity effect takes much longer to fix.
Lower salinity has problems of its own.
The lowered salinity of the arctic ocean could also affect ocean currents by preventing low salinity cold water at the poles from sinking into the more saline deep ocean. The big fear for Europe and the U.S. is that this might shut down the atlantic conveyor system (i.e. the gulf stream is a part of it). If that happens, Europe will get really cold, and tropical waters will get warmer. It would probably resemble another mini-ice age. A cold Europe would challenge world food supplies. Warmer tropical waters would (temporarily) raise sea levels in the tropics and probably make for a century or two of nasty hurricane seasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Kind of like you did in the previous paragraph?
Who's theory? I assume you've done a fault tree analysis? In comparing other launch systems with the shuttle, I've found that the theoretical differences in safety are fairly insignificant. Don't give me the "it's got an escape system" if you're not going to talk about what flight envelopes it can be used in (That capsule wasn't designed to separate in atmosphere and once it does it's flying backwards) and what other flight and pre-launch risks such a system adds (some).
What existing man-rated launcher are you planning to use?
I'm not saying there aren't engineering and efficiency advantages to expendable launch vehicles. There definitely are. Ability to send up equipment on a cheaper less reliable vehicle is a big one.
I just hate it when people pull "safety" out of their a**.
No. The total energy of charged particles impacting the upper atmosphere is tiny compared with the solar light energy Compare for example, the intensity of the aurora with the intensity of sunlight. Now add in the fact that the aurora covers a tiny fraction of the earths surface while sunlight blankets half of the earth at any time.
Even if it were a significant amount of energy, this energy is entirely absorbed by the atmosphere at altitudes above 60km. You would need to come up with a plausible mechanism for transporting this radiation down into the lower atmosphere without increasing the temperature of the stratosphere.
No, it isn't. The change on Jupiter is regional, not global. There is no indication that it is related to any solar phenomenon.
No, it isn't. Mars is losing CO2 ice near its South Pole. The most likely explanation is that large dust storms from recent years dumped some dust on the ice causing it to absorb sunlight and sublime. This sublimation may cause warming by increasing the CO2 and H2O content of the Martian atmosphere. This might feedback into causing more ice to evaporate. Since there isn't an active carbonate silicate cycle on Mars due to lack of liquid water, there is nothing to prevent this from occurring. So it's likely that the Martian climate experiences warming of this type in a cyclical manner, and that the warming will continue until something else stops it. For example the reduction in the temperature difference between the poles and the equatorial regions might slow the winds enough that the dust storms stop allowing increased precipitaion of CO2 onto the poles. There is no equivalent mechanism at work on Earth. However the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is more than 20 times longer than the residence time of methane. But wait officer, there were forest fires before there were people. Therefore it couldn't have been my campfire that started it.But wait officer, people can die without being murdered. Therefore it doesn't matter whether my fingerprints are on the gun.
Point 1 you could have gotten wrong just because you don't know anything about atmospheric science. The rest just puts you in the denial camp. Drop the political agenda for a while and see reality.Yet another stupid and probably wrong conclusion by reporters and psychologists.
Might it be possible that people who drive in an aggressive manner are more likely to be attracted to driving games than people who drive in a defensive manner? Might that be a better explanation of the correlation than "driving video games make people drive in a risky manner?"
It's long past time for this.
The escape tower does not help with reentry failures, failures in orbit, or catastropic failure near max-q (the most likely place for a structural failure during ascent). About the only thing it is really good for is loss of enough engines that orbit cannot be acheieved or catastropic failure at fairly low speed. It only works in certain flight envelopes where aerodynamic loads would not still destroy the crew module or make parachute deployment impossible. The reentry system isn't designed for every possible reentry trajectory, and once you use the escape tower you've thrown away the engines you need to adjust your trajectory. If you use it at hypersonic speed in dense air, once the escape rockets are spent, you've got an unstable body pointing in the wrong direction. It won't stay that way for long before it turns into a pinwheel. I highly doubt that the reaction control system on Apollo could have stabilized it.
Before someone starts bemoaning how great and safe Apollo was compared to the shuttle, I'll say what everyone will subsequently ignore:
If the Apollo program had gone to 117 launches, the best (max likelyhood) estimate is that there would have been 15 loss of vehicle accidents with 30 crew lost. While the error in that estimate is large, there is no evidence that Saturn launch vehicles were any safer than the shuttle, and it's a better than 1-sigma bet that they would have been worse.
Not only that, giving notice at your current job is probably not even necessary, depending upon where you live. In California at least, chances are 99% that you are an "at will" employee. What that means is your employer doesn't need to give you notice, and you don't need to give your employer notice. So there's never a need to rush into letting your employer know you're about to move along until everything is rock solid.
Frankly, I would tell their relo manager to take a long walk off a short pier, then call the recruiter to ask what kind of shit is he trying to pull and would he like to talk with my lawyer.
preferential tax treatment for reglious organizations
posting of religious symbols on public property
restrictions on abortion
restrictions on pornography
restrictions on private sexual conduct
undeclared wars
and corporate welfare
are also unconstitutional.
I agree that is what the license says. However, the GPLv2 does not anywhere, that I can see, allow you to prohibit distribution under another version, if you were granted that option, without the consent of the copyright holder. You may choose to distribute under the terms of GPLv2, but that doesn't mean you can restrict distribution under GPLv3 if the source you received says "GPLv2 or later"
After all you are required to "keep intact all notices that refer to this license." That would include the portions that say "either version 2 of the license, or (at your option) any later version."
Removing "either" and ", or (at your option) any later version." would seem to violate that clause.
I'm not sure that is true. The if the license terms of some code are "v2 or later" and someone tries to release it "v2 only" that's a violation of the original license. The license explicitly says that you may only distribute it by giving the recipient the same rights as you recieved. In other words, if you received the right to distribute the code under "v2 or later" you MUST give anyone who receives the code the right to distribute under "v2 or later." "v2 only" violates that license. You can't change the terms of the license without the consent of the copyright holder. In other words, it is the choice of the recipient as to which version of the GPL they choose to receive it under, but my understanding is that a redistributor cannot choose which license they distribute under. They must give the recipient the same terms (i.e. choice) that they had.
Only the copyright holder can choose to change those terms. If you don't hold the copyright you cannot change "v2 or later" to read "v3 or later" or to "v2 only".
If Sun chooses "GPL v3 or (at your option) any later version", that pretty much kills that possibility. Linus's choice of "GPL v2 and no other version" is not compatible with "GPL v3 or later." It's unclear to me whether "GPL v2 and no other version" is even compatible with "GPL v2 or later." Probably not, because by including "2 or later" code into a "only 2" product can't be done without changing the license terms of the "2 or later" code without the permission of the copyright holder.
If I had a dime for every "Libertarian" I've met who thought copyright and DRM were the best thing since sliced bread I could give Feinstein a large enough donation to make her withdraw her support for this one. As far as I can tell the Libertarian party is for just enough government to protect their business interests (i.e. copyright), but not so much government that it would prevent them from dumping industrial waste on their neighbors' property.
The best response is for everyone, Democrats, Republicans, Greens and Libertarians to write to their congress people and tell them that you won't vote for them during the next election if they support this. And then during the next election carry out your threat.
The only way this will be tested is if someone who has released source code under the BSD license files suit against someone who is redistributing it under other terms. I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. Until then, it's just speculation...
What does blurring out portions of satellite photos buy you? Practically nothing. For every grenade lobbed over the wall into a millitary installation, ten car bombs hit police stations and markets. You don't need satellite photos to find them.
Insurgency and terrorism are predominantly a low tech game. No terrorist will go after a hard target when a soft one is available. And anyone who has visited California in October knows you only need about $200 and a trip to the hardware store to cripple the west coast with more damage than a 20 kiloton nuke could do. And shutting down Google Earth won't do a damn thing to stop it. Neither will anything else short of 24 hour curfews for everyone.
So let's give up our freedoms in order to prevent things that aren't going to happen. Then when the next attack occurs, we can at least take comfort in the fact that we forged our own chains.
Yep. Although comparing Feinstein to a Democrat is hardly fair. She makes Lieberman look like a pinko peacenik. It's too bad the Republicans didn't run a real person against her. But then again, why would they run a Republican against a Republican?
Please write a letter to your senators and representatives expressing your dismay. Let them know they are beholden to the voters, not to their donors, and that the voters won't put up with this crap.
Isn't a little early to call something that isn't yet shipping a success?
This is Heritage Foundation crap. Only a true believer could think that it's acceptable for 13% of any group to experience hunger. Oh, I forgot, thanks to the current administration, we don't call it hunger anymore. It's now "inconsistent access to food."
Sorry, I think you're wrong about that.
GPL requires that the license terms (i.e. "version 2 or (at your option) any later version") be present in the copyright notice. If you don't own the copyright, you aren't allowed to change the licensing terms. Essentially, if people submitted code while the copyright notice read "v2 or later" you are allowed to distribute that code under v2, but you are not allowed to prohibit distribution under v3 or later. You can only do that to code you own.
No it doesn't. The choice of license is up to the recipient not the distributor. Suppose have a piece of software that I wrote and distribute which is licensed under the "version 2 or (at your option) any later version" clause. Suppose the FSF releases GPL version 4 which states that the recipient must send $100 to the FSF in order to use the software. What person in their right mind, upon seeing "version 2 or (at your option) any later version" is going to choose GPL version 4? No one, that's who.
And as far as I can tell, no one at FSF can take code to which I own the copyright and modify my copyright notice to read "version 4 only." The GPL allows the recipient of software to choose the terms of a later version or the earlier version, but it does not allow the right to choose the earlier version to be restricted. Modification of the software is allows, modification of the licensing terms is not. Even if the GPL is changed to allow modification of the licensing terms, versions will still be available that say "version 2 or (at your option) any later version".
In order for your fears to become reality the copyright notice would need to read "only the most recent version."
But it's also one of the most boring places on the planet, especially for teens, as evidenced by high rates of teen suicide attempts and a very low teen pregnancy rate. It might be the one spot on the planet where a teen geek isn't even guaranteed a spot on the high school chess team.
My understanding of the U.S. tax code is that advertising revenues would not be considered non-profit income, and would therefore be subject to taxes, or worse would jeapordize the Wikimedia Foundation's non-profit status. That is precisely why we can't put Google ads on the SETI@home web page, and need to do things like putting links in our .sigs.
PBS stations walk the fine line between acknowledging their contributors and advertising for them.
My main question is how do needy fundraisers like myself get in on the action. :)
It would if the salinity of the water and the ice were the same. In this case the salinity of the ice is less than the salinity of the ocean. Lower salinity means lower density and lower volume. Melt the ice and the salinity of the ocean ends up lower, so the density ends up lower, and the volume increases, raising sea levels.
It's not as big an effect as it would be melting ice lying on land, but it is an effect.
It's temporarily offset by the effect of the ice cooling the surface waters (which makes them more dense), but that effect doesn't last. The salinity effect takes much longer to fix.
Lower salinity has problems of its own. The lowered salinity of the arctic ocean could also affect ocean currents by preventing low salinity cold water at the poles from sinking into the more saline deep ocean. The big fear for Europe and the U.S. is that this might shut down the atlantic conveyor system (i.e. the gulf stream is a part of it). If that happens, Europe will get really cold, and tropical waters will get warmer. It would probably resemble another mini-ice age. A cold Europe would challenge world food supplies. Warmer tropical waters would (temporarily) raise sea levels in the tropics and probably make for a century or two of nasty hurricane seasons.
Let's hope it doesn't happen.