we have far right, right, and slightly centerists. not a single leftest other than bernie, which is not going to get anywhere (sadly).
Well, if you include "progressives" in "far right" (European fascism evolved out of progressivism), that is probably true. However, the distinctions between "left" and "right" become academic at that point.
That's the problem with government mandated school curricula: scientists, engineers, corporations, churches, religious nuts, Luddites, leftists, rightists, unions, parents, teachers, and everybody else is trying to force their ideas into the curriculum, not just for their own kids, but for everybody in the whole country.
If Apple loses, then they and other cell phone manufacturers will be required to include backdoors and maintain work arounds for the government indefinitely.
The iPhone 5C already has a backdoor; that's the problem. Furthermore, you can be certain that the NSA and other agencies can get in through that back door. Apple winning or losing makes no difference to that. But if Apple wins, it gives the appearance that your data is protected when in fact it is not. Furthermore, if Apple wins, it will give more ammunition to people demanding laws that require explicit backdoors.
Also, while it has been possible for more than a decade, that doesn't mean such phone would be affordable, easy to use, or popular.
We know such a phone would be affordable, easy to use, and popular: there would be no user visible changes. Nor would it be any more expensive, because Apple already has a custom, secure crypto chip that could have implemented the PIN wipe securely without backdoors and at no extra cost.
I get that they haven't done so for business reasons, but since no one else has either I won't fault them for it.
That's patently false. Every GSM phone uses secure hardware for unlocking the SIM card itself and has done so for a couple of decades. In addition, the Android security architecture does not have this flaw. Doing this right is neither hard nor expensive. The question still remains why Apple didn't.
My guess is that the weak security architecture of the iPhone 5C was deliberate, precisely in order to have a backdoor available should countries like Russia and China demand it. No global phone manufacturer can afford to put a phone on the market without some kind of backdoor, because they risk getting booted out of markets like Russia, China, California, France, and New York., all of which have, or are considering, limits on strong encryption.
Actually, you can point to a natural event of similar magnitude - it was the catastrophic event which ignited vast coal deposits in what is now Siberia, causing a huge release of fossil fuel CO2 and a subsequent release of methane hydrates in a positive feedback loop, thus triggering the Permian-Triassic extinction.
You're imagining that. In reality, nobody knows what the cause of the P-Tr extinction actually was. Atmospheric carbon was fairly high, but higher CO2 concentrations existed more recently with no associated extinctions. So, whether there was large scale release of CO2 or not, it wasn't the cause of the P-Tr extinction.
You are not addressing this fact - the carbon spike we're creating comes from digging and pumping hydrocarbons that have been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years and releasing them into the atmosphere in less than two centuries. Name a single natural process that does that.
So what? Even if we burned all fossil fuels we can access, we might get up to 1000 ppmv atmospheric CO2. That brings us up to maybe Eocene levels, a period during which terrestrial life was thriving and during which the climate didn't spin out of control.
That tenuous recovery happened without the pressure of a seven billion strong civilization monopolizing most of the arable land for energy-intensive agriculture and resource extraction. It seems absurd that life on earth could have survived both at the same time.
The idea that humans could kill off "life on earth" is completely and utterly absurd. We couldn't do that even with all our nuclear bombs. Likewise, the idea that burning all the accessible fossil fuels is a threat to life is absurd; at most, it would bring us out of the current ice age, and even that would take thousands of years and would likely be overall beneficial to life.
The only climate change related argument one can make is that rapid climate change inconveniences some human populations. I think even that is a fairly weak argument. And the costs of those inconveniences are far smaller than the cost of limiting fossil fuel use.
I'm sorry, but your beliefs are completely irrational. You're trapped in some kind of doomsday cult mentality.
I also assume you haven't paid attention to the extreme degree of wildfires, forest-killing beetles that winter should have held back.
Are you going to blame the appearance of Donald Trump and Celine Dion on climate change too?
Does the fact that 99% of the scientists, all the indigenous cultures of the polar regions, the satellite images of the shrinking ice caps say nothing?
It's getting warmer. What's your point?
I find your assertions to be shockingly out of touch,
I can live with that. I find you utterly ignorant. You'll have to live with that too.
Suppose I wave my magic wand at you, trying to turn you into a frog. I'm a lousy magician and it doesn't work, with no immediately obvious bad effects. Would you object to me continuing to wave my magic wand at you?
This also means that a vital part of the PIN check is in the crypto processor, just what you wanted. The problem is that the rate limitation and wipe capability appear to be in ARM software in the 5C,
The rate limitation and wipe capability are the "vital part" of the PIN check, and the fact that those are implemented by the ARM instead of the crypto processor is a fundamental problem. Combining the PIN with the internal (fixed) 256 bit key is pointless because the entropy of the PIN is so low.
The iPhone 5C crypto system is almost the ideal design for a backdoor: it provides good security against attacks by most criminals, but Apple can easily create tools to brute force it if required by governments. Apple themselves admits that, that's what this fight is all about, after all.
Also, "at this point, we can't trust anything Apple says." What has changed recently to alter your perception of Apple's trustworthiness? What statement did Apple make that proved false?
The lack of security of the iPhone 5C wasn't a problem in itself; anybody could look at Apple's documents and draw their own conclusions, but people just weren't very interested; Apple didn't try to sell their phones as ultra-secure and they didn't pretend that they weren't collaborating with governments. What has changed is that Apple is now pretending that their refusal to cooperate with the FBI amounts to some principled defense of privacy.
Furthermore, given the situation in places like China and Russia (and probably France and Germany, as well as pending legislation in US states), it is inconceivable that Apple phones cannot have some form of government backdoor, because Apple is clearly going to face a choice at some point: stop selling your phones or cooperate with authorities. In the iPhone 5C, the backdoor was in the design in a fairly obvious way; in the 5S and subsequent phones, it may simply be some kind of software or hardware "master key", or alternatively, Apple may simply be lying about the design.
Did you actually READ the original PETM paper? You remember - the Nature one in 1999 (vol 401, p 775)?
Yes, did you? It's right in the abstract: show that two-thirds of the carbon-isotope anomaly occurred within no more than a few thousand years, indicating that carbon was catastrophically released into the ocean and atmosphere. That is, the article provides an upper bound on the time period, not a lower limit.
The article suggests an even stronger conclusion: Our results suggest that large natural perturbations to the global carbon cycle have occurred in the past—probably by abrupt failure of sedimentary carbon reservoirs—at rates that are similar to those induced today by human activity. If you accept that suggestion, then the case for concern about AGW becomes even weaker.
And during the PETM there was no industrialized species [blah blah blah]
You can indulge in your dystopian eco-fantasies all you want. The fact remains that while the existence of the PETM may not convince you that AGW is harmless, the example of the PETM certainly does not in any way support the notion that AGW is harmful.
What we've done in just 200 years is near-instantaneous in geological terms, and the systemically ongoing, even accelerating nature of it does not bear comparison to the PETM or any other natural extinction event.
I sure hope not!
Our ingenuity continues to be largely devoted to wringing more out of the Earth in unsustainable ways.
Yes, that is what human civilization is and does. It's what has allowed us to grow to 7 billion people, increased life expectancy from 25 years to 70 years globally, eliminate hunger for most of the world's population, build computers and satellites, and write poetry.
What wake-up call will be enough to get us into a sustainable or regenerative role?
Hopefully nothing will, ever: adapting to rapid change is the essence of being human. You're welcome to lobotomize yourself and attach to a rock somewhere if you like. Others will not follow you.
10cm won't affect anything? I guess you have no idea about how storm surges are affected by increases in sea level, and how just small increases can severely affect the damage wrought.
In fact, I do. I suggest you work out for yourself why people say that "small increases can severely affect the damage wrought", and why, although literally true, that isn't actually a significant problem when it happens gradually. Note also that several cities, like Amsterdam for example, have been below sea level for a long time.
Seeing as you said there is "plenty of time to prepare", that means you know how much preparation time it will take to relocate New York, London
It takes no "preparation time" at all. Buildings are effectively being rebuilt every 20-50 years anyway, and it makes little difference whether they are being rebuilt in place or somewhere else.
and all the other coastal cities vital for civilisation.
The fact that financial and cultural centers are frequently port cities is an anachronism rooted in how maritime trade used to function. Nothing particularly serious will happen to "civilization" if, over this century, these cities gradually shrunk and other cities took over their function, something that has happened again and again throughout human history.
Making a device able to resist any attack by someone with full physical control over the phone is non-trivial, and gets extremely difficult when the phone is required to be easy to use.
Bullshit. All Apple needed to do is perform the PIN check inside the crypto processor instead of in ARM software, and not use the PIN as a component of the encryption key. That's not rocket science. The fact that 5C encryption was badly broken was obvious from the start.
Which is why the 5S and later iPhones had even better security measures.
We don't know how good the security measures of the 5S and later iPhones are, and at this point, we can't trust anything Apple says.
Frankly, it seems to be a matter of whether you consider the distant future to be when you are twenty or thirty years older than you now are.
In 30 years, sea levels may have risen another 10 cm. That won't affect anything.
Personally, if Hansen et al might be right, then it would be prudent to NOT investment your retirement savings in that condominium project in south Florida.
Hansen's fear mongering isn't even relevant on those time horizons. Furthermore, rational investment and public policy decisions cannot be made based on possibilities, but must be based on probabilities.
Your position is consistent with the view of a younger person who regards a decade as a third or more of the life that he has so far lived, and has no concept of responsibility for decisions that will affect your kids' and grandkids' lives.
Your position is consistent with the naive views of a young person who still believes "the world is ending unless..." bullshit. I have seen enough of these political scare tactics in my life to not believe them as uncritically as you do.
There are serious right-now, today and not tomorrow, reasons for thoroughly studying what Hansen and the other experts are warning about.
I have thoroughly studied it: Hansen is a charlatan and a snake oil salesman; you can't lump him in "with the other experts".
IPCC predicts sea level rise between about 18 cm and 59 cm by 2100. That's a reasonable estimate, and it's largely unavoidable at this point. It's also not a big deal for most people, and you have plenty of time to prepare.
Yes: we are far more adaptable and flexible than animals. That is, we are at far less risk from climate change than any other land animal.
If the sea level rise, animals will just move to slightly higher ground, they don't have huge cities to move.
Neither do we. Cities effectively get rebuilt from the ground up every few decades anyway; you usually don't notice it because instead of replacing buildings all at once, it's a more incremental process. The cost of rebuilding in a different location instead of renovating an existing building is about the same if you have a long term planning horizon.
Apple doesn't make some obscure implementation error. The design of the 5C's encryption hardware was obviously fundamentally wrong from the start, namely the way they combine the PIN with the hardware key. The question is why.
The first study just argued that carbon release was faster than during the PETM. But what the PETM really tells you is that even very fast releases of carbon and temperatures 10-12C higher than today don't seem to be particularly harmful to land animals. It is, of course, possible that even faster releases of carbon are more harmful, but the first study provides no new evidence that they are.
As for Hansen's paper referred to in this article, it tries to make a case for the dangers of climate change by looking for analogues for current climate change in the past. But he clearly starts out with the goal of showing that climate change is very dangerous and then tries to concoct scenarios and fit observations to reach that conclusion. Hansen is not objective anymore, and his papers and conclusions are not credible anymore.
Good thing is: none of this really matters. Politically, it is impossible for Western leaders to have much influence over fossil fuel use, and deployment of renewable energy progresses at its own pace and as it makes economic sense, no matter what nutcases like Hansen say or want.
The phone is not made from tamper resistant hardware.
The phone has a tamper resistant cryptographic processor (separate from the main processor), but that processor isn't used in a way that ensures cryptographic security. How to do it right was known at the time these phones were designed, and it wouldn't have been any more expensive. So, the question is: why are these phones designed the way they are? It either has to be staggering incompetence, or it has to be deliberate.
The issue isn't about doom for the world, but instead, its about humans that live on this world today.
Many climate change activists predict long term, devastating changes to the planet from higher average temperatures: mass extinctions of land animal, massive expansions in deserts, massive reduction in arable land, shortages of fresh water, etc. The PETM and Eocene optimum show that higher temperatures don't cause such effects. That excludes a large number of doomsday scenarios invoked by climate change activists. Of course, climate change activists can still construct scenarios under which climate change causes problems, but looking at the PETM severely limits their options.
On a good day, many humans on the globe live on the edge of survivability.
In actual fact, the absolute number of people living in hunger or dying from environmental causes has sharply decreased over the last 100 years, and that is despite a world population that has more than tripled during the same time period, a century of climate change, and massive environmental mismanagement that we have only started to address recently. Worldwide, cultivated land area has been decreasing since 1998 since we simply don't need it anymore. The world population is going to stabilize at about 50% higher than today. We can feed those extra people with no problems simply by bringing the rest of the world up to US standards of agriculture, with room to spare. With new technologies (e.g. CRISPR), I expect we'll only need a fraction of the land we use today to feed the world's population.
Change the survivability equation enough and with 7 billion people on the planet, there isn't as much slack to cope. The issue isn't the survivability of humans on the planet, its the hell we would go through in the next 100-200 years as our climate changes faster than we are able to orderly cope.
That's a dystopian fairy tale, as is the idea that we can realistically reduce carbon emissions. In reality, the only political option we have is further rapid industrialization of agriculture and economic development of third world nations, both of which will make any changes in arable land irrelevant, even if they should occur.
But whatever beliefs you may hold, citing the PETM in order to support climate change alarmism (as TFA tried to do) just doesn't make any sense, because there is nothing in the PETM that supports doomsday scenarios.
That was 5-8 C over a period of about 2000 years. AGW is much more rapid.
You're welcome to believe that the PETM fails to demonstrate that climate change is harmless. But when climate change activists point to the PETM in order to raise alarm about climate change, as they did in TFA, they need to be told that they are full of shit.
(Note also that nobody knows how fast temperatures were rising back then; we only know an upper limit on the time period, not a lower limit.)
The numbers i have were correct. I didn't say it was 20% carbon. The rest of your response seems to be rooted in numerous misconceptions about how such processes would work.
I'm assuming it is a hardware exploit. It certainly relies on the fact that the iPhone 5c hardware is not secure, and that isn't fixable. The question is: why was the iPhone 5c designed that way in the first place. Neither cost nor lack of technology account for it.
Until Apple fixes this exploit in the next release...
The question you should be asking is why the exploit was there in the first place. The fact that the iPhone 5C had exploits was clear from the beginning, and any halfway competent Apple engineer must have known that.
"The anthropogenic release outpaces carbon release during the most extreme global warming event of the past 66 million years, by at least an order of magnitude," writes Peter Stassen,
Yes, during the PETM, temperatures rose rapidly by 5-8C. Mind you, this temperature increase was on top of temperatures that were already a lot higher than today. There were lots of changes during that period, but no generalized mass extinction. Corals suffered but didn't die out. Land animals didn't see any significant extinction. Mammals did very well.
In addition, just to drive the point home, the carbon was then rapidly absorbed again and the temperature fell again, before slowly rising to the same level again during the Eocene optimum. So we have examples of both fast and slow, long duration and short duration increases in atmospheric carbon from the Eocene, and no massive global catastrophes.
The PETM to me always suggested that the concerns about climate change were overblown. Even if there are some negative short term effects, much higher temperatures and melting ice caps don't spell doom for the world. In fact, if anything, the Eocene climate may have been nicer than what we have today.
(Note also that when people claim that carbon release during the PETM "was" slower than today, that's based on various assumptions, not direct measurement. All we can say is that carbon release was very fast and took less than 20ka.)
No, I'm afraid you don't. There is no evidence whatsoever that gun control reduces homicides. If you believe it does, you live in a fact free fantasy world.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you include "progressives" in "far right" (European fascism evolved out of progressivism), that is probably true. However, the distinctions between "left" and "right" become academic at that point.
By hiring an Israeli company instead of breaking in themselves, they seem to have insulated themselves from that requirement.
That's the problem with government mandated school curricula: scientists, engineers, corporations, churches, religious nuts, Luddites, leftists, rightists, unions, parents, teachers, and everybody else is trying to force their ideas into the curriculum, not just for their own kids, but for everybody in the whole country.
The iPhone 5C already has a backdoor; that's the problem. Furthermore, you can be certain that the NSA and other agencies can get in through that back door. Apple winning or losing makes no difference to that. But if Apple wins, it gives the appearance that your data is protected when in fact it is not. Furthermore, if Apple wins, it will give more ammunition to people demanding laws that require explicit backdoors.
We know such a phone would be affordable, easy to use, and popular: there would be no user visible changes. Nor would it be any more expensive, because Apple already has a custom, secure crypto chip that could have implemented the PIN wipe securely without backdoors and at no extra cost.
That's patently false. Every GSM phone uses secure hardware for unlocking the SIM card itself and has done so for a couple of decades. In addition, the Android security architecture does not have this flaw. Doing this right is neither hard nor expensive. The question still remains why Apple didn't.
My guess is that the weak security architecture of the iPhone 5C was deliberate, precisely in order to have a backdoor available should countries like Russia and China demand it. No global phone manufacturer can afford to put a phone on the market without some kind of backdoor, because they risk getting booted out of markets like Russia, China, California, France, and New York., all of which have, or are considering, limits on strong encryption.
You're imagining that. In reality, nobody knows what the cause of the P-Tr extinction actually was. Atmospheric carbon was fairly high, but higher CO2 concentrations existed more recently with no associated extinctions. So, whether there was large scale release of CO2 or not, it wasn't the cause of the P-Tr extinction.
So what? Even if we burned all fossil fuels we can access, we might get up to 1000 ppmv atmospheric CO2. That brings us up to maybe Eocene levels, a period during which terrestrial life was thriving and during which the climate didn't spin out of control.
The idea that humans could kill off "life on earth" is completely and utterly absurd. We couldn't do that even with all our nuclear bombs. Likewise, the idea that burning all the accessible fossil fuels is a threat to life is absurd; at most, it would bring us out of the current ice age, and even that would take thousands of years and would likely be overall beneficial to life.
The only climate change related argument one can make is that rapid climate change inconveniences some human populations. I think even that is a fairly weak argument. And the costs of those inconveniences are far smaller than the cost of limiting fossil fuel use.
I'm sorry, but your beliefs are completely irrational. You're trapped in some kind of doomsday cult mentality.
Are you going to blame the appearance of Donald Trump and Celine Dion on climate change too?
It's getting warmer. What's your point?
I can live with that. I find you utterly ignorant. You'll have to live with that too.
FTFY. And the answer is, no, I would not object.
The rate limitation and wipe capability are the "vital part" of the PIN check, and the fact that those are implemented by the ARM instead of the crypto processor is a fundamental problem. Combining the PIN with the internal (fixed) 256 bit key is pointless because the entropy of the PIN is so low.
The iPhone 5C crypto system is almost the ideal design for a backdoor: it provides good security against attacks by most criminals, but Apple can easily create tools to brute force it if required by governments. Apple themselves admits that, that's what this fight is all about, after all.
The lack of security of the iPhone 5C wasn't a problem in itself; anybody could look at Apple's documents and draw their own conclusions, but people just weren't very interested; Apple didn't try to sell their phones as ultra-secure and they didn't pretend that they weren't collaborating with governments. What has changed is that Apple is now pretending that their refusal to cooperate with the FBI amounts to some principled defense of privacy.
Furthermore, given the situation in places like China and Russia (and probably France and Germany, as well as pending legislation in US states), it is inconceivable that Apple phones cannot have some form of government backdoor, because Apple is clearly going to face a choice at some point: stop selling your phones or cooperate with authorities. In the iPhone 5C, the backdoor was in the design in a fairly obvious way; in the 5S and subsequent phones, it may simply be some kind of software or hardware "master key", or alternatively, Apple may simply be lying about the design.
Yes, did you? It's right in the abstract: show that two-thirds of the carbon-isotope anomaly occurred within no more than a few thousand years, indicating that carbon was catastrophically released into the ocean and atmosphere. That is, the article provides an upper bound on the time period, not a lower limit.
The article suggests an even stronger conclusion: Our results suggest that large natural perturbations to the global carbon cycle have occurred in the past—probably by abrupt failure of sedimentary carbon reservoirs—at rates that are similar to those induced today by human activity. If you accept that suggestion, then the case for concern about AGW becomes even weaker.
You can indulge in your dystopian eco-fantasies all you want. The fact remains that while the existence of the PETM may not convince you that AGW is harmless, the example of the PETM certainly does not in any way support the notion that AGW is harmful.
I sure hope not!
Yes, that is what human civilization is and does. It's what has allowed us to grow to 7 billion people, increased life expectancy from 25 years to 70 years globally, eliminate hunger for most of the world's population, build computers and satellites, and write poetry.
Hopefully nothing will, ever: adapting to rapid change is the essence of being human. You're welcome to lobotomize yourself and attach to a rock somewhere if you like. Others will not follow you.
In fact, I do. I suggest you work out for yourself why people say that "small increases can severely affect the damage wrought", and why, although literally true, that isn't actually a significant problem when it happens gradually. Note also that several cities, like Amsterdam for example, have been below sea level for a long time.
It takes no "preparation time" at all. Buildings are effectively being rebuilt every 20-50 years anyway, and it makes little difference whether they are being rebuilt in place or somewhere else.
The fact that financial and cultural centers are frequently port cities is an anachronism rooted in how maritime trade used to function. Nothing particularly serious will happen to "civilization" if, over this century, these cities gradually shrunk and other cities took over their function, something that has happened again and again throughout human history.
Bullshit. All Apple needed to do is perform the PIN check inside the crypto processor instead of in ARM software, and not use the PIN as a component of the encryption key. That's not rocket science. The fact that 5C encryption was badly broken was obvious from the start.
We don't know how good the security measures of the 5S and later iPhones are, and at this point, we can't trust anything Apple says.
In 30 years, sea levels may have risen another 10 cm. That won't affect anything.
Hansen's fear mongering isn't even relevant on those time horizons. Furthermore, rational investment and public policy decisions cannot be made based on possibilities, but must be based on probabilities.
Your position is consistent with the naive views of a young person who still believes "the world is ending unless..." bullshit. I have seen enough of these political scare tactics in my life to not believe them as uncritically as you do.
I have thoroughly studied it: Hansen is a charlatan and a snake oil salesman; you can't lump him in "with the other experts".
IPCC predicts sea level rise between about 18 cm and 59 cm by 2100. That's a reasonable estimate, and it's largely unavoidable at this point. It's also not a big deal for most people, and you have plenty of time to prepare.
Angel'o'sphere is German; he is concerned about Lebensraum.
Yes: we are far more adaptable and flexible than animals. That is, we are at far less risk from climate change than any other land animal.
Neither do we. Cities effectively get rebuilt from the ground up every few decades anyway; you usually don't notice it because instead of replacing buildings all at once, it's a more incremental process. The cost of rebuilding in a different location instead of renovating an existing building is about the same if you have a long term planning horizon.
Apple doesn't make some obscure implementation error. The design of the 5C's encryption hardware was obviously fundamentally wrong from the start, namely the way they combine the PIN with the hardware key. The question is why.
As for Hansen's paper referred to in this article, it tries to make a case for the dangers of climate change by looking for analogues for current climate change in the past. But he clearly starts out with the goal of showing that climate change is very dangerous and then tries to concoct scenarios and fit observations to reach that conclusion. Hansen is not objective anymore, and his papers and conclusions are not credible anymore.
Good thing is: none of this really matters. Politically, it is impossible for Western leaders to have much influence over fossil fuel use, and deployment of renewable energy progresses at its own pace and as it makes economic sense, no matter what nutcases like Hansen say or want.
The phone has a tamper resistant cryptographic processor (separate from the main processor), but that processor isn't used in a way that ensures cryptographic security. How to do it right was known at the time these phones were designed, and it wouldn't have been any more expensive. So, the question is: why are these phones designed the way they are? It either has to be staggering incompetence, or it has to be deliberate.
Many climate change activists predict long term, devastating changes to the planet from higher average temperatures: mass extinctions of land animal, massive expansions in deserts, massive reduction in arable land, shortages of fresh water, etc. The PETM and Eocene optimum show that higher temperatures don't cause such effects. That excludes a large number of doomsday scenarios invoked by climate change activists. Of course, climate change activists can still construct scenarios under which climate change causes problems, but looking at the PETM severely limits their options.
In actual fact, the absolute number of people living in hunger or dying from environmental causes has sharply decreased over the last 100 years, and that is despite a world population that has more than tripled during the same time period, a century of climate change, and massive environmental mismanagement that we have only started to address recently. Worldwide, cultivated land area has been decreasing since 1998 since we simply don't need it anymore. The world population is going to stabilize at about 50% higher than today. We can feed those extra people with no problems simply by bringing the rest of the world up to US standards of agriculture, with room to spare. With new technologies (e.g. CRISPR), I expect we'll only need a fraction of the land we use today to feed the world's population.
That's a dystopian fairy tale, as is the idea that we can realistically reduce carbon emissions. In reality, the only political option we have is further rapid industrialization of agriculture and economic development of third world nations, both of which will make any changes in arable land irrelevant, even if they should occur.
But whatever beliefs you may hold, citing the PETM in order to support climate change alarmism (as TFA tried to do) just doesn't make any sense, because there is nothing in the PETM that supports doomsday scenarios.
You're welcome to believe that the PETM fails to demonstrate that climate change is harmless. But when climate change activists point to the PETM in order to raise alarm about climate change, as they did in TFA, they need to be told that they are full of shit.
(Note also that nobody knows how fast temperatures were rising back then; we only know an upper limit on the time period, not a lower limit.)
The numbers i have were correct. I didn't say it was 20% carbon. The rest of your response seems to be rooted in numerous misconceptions about how such processes would work.
I'm assuming it is a hardware exploit. It certainly relies on the fact that the iPhone 5c hardware is not secure, and that isn't fixable. The question is: why was the iPhone 5c designed that way in the first place. Neither cost nor lack of technology account for it.
The question you should be asking is why the exploit was there in the first place. The fact that the iPhone 5C had exploits was clear from the beginning, and any halfway competent Apple engineer must have known that.
Yes, during the PETM, temperatures rose rapidly by 5-8C. Mind you, this temperature increase was on top of temperatures that were already a lot higher than today. There were lots of changes during that period, but no generalized mass extinction. Corals suffered but didn't die out. Land animals didn't see any significant extinction. Mammals did very well.
In addition, just to drive the point home, the carbon was then rapidly absorbed again and the temperature fell again, before slowly rising to the same level again during the Eocene optimum. So we have examples of both fast and slow, long duration and short duration increases in atmospheric carbon from the Eocene, and no massive global catastrophes.
The PETM to me always suggested that the concerns about climate change were overblown. Even if there are some negative short term effects, much higher temperatures and melting ice caps don't spell doom for the world. In fact, if anything, the Eocene climate may have been nicer than what we have today.
(Note also that when people claim that carbon release during the PETM "was" slower than today, that's based on various assumptions, not direct measurement. All we can say is that carbon release was very fast and took less than 20ka.)
No, I'm afraid you don't. There is no evidence whatsoever that gun control reduces homicides. If you believe it does, you live in a fact free fantasy world.