Also note, that historically CO2 follows Temps.... i.e. empirically, CO2 isn't a climate driver.
It goes two ways. Rising temperature causes higher CO2, and higher CO2 increases the temperature. During recent ice ages, the temperature changed first (and then got reinforced by the increase in CO2). Right now, the changes start with higher CO2.
There's always a risk that you're going to blow up if you climb in a rocket. If you don't want to accept that risk, don't climb in there.
Also, there has only been one case where a SpaceX rocket exploded during propellant loading, and timing analysis shows that a manned capsule would have been able to activate the emergency abort sequence, and escape the fireball.
A few governments (e.g. Inida) use this to ledger land ownership, which cuts down on the type of fraud that involves switching around records or directly altering the database.
A blockchain isn't immune to alterations. You just have to redo all the work from the point where you make the change.
Scalping is only a problem for buyers, not for sellers.
If that were true, the problem could be solved by Ticketmaster auctioning off all tickets instead of selling them for a decent price. They'd make a lot more money.
Ice core data shows a several-hundred-year lag between rising temperatures and higher CO2.
Rising temperature and higher CO2 form a mutual causal relationship. The path from CO2 to temperature is a lot quicker (few decades max), so you don't recognize it in the graphs.
And how the hell is a venue-deployed facial recognition system going to help curb that?
You compare the face with the face in your database of all people that bought a legit ticket. If that doesn't produce a match, you ask for the ticket and ID, and do a manual check.
Facial recognition has been around a lot longer than 2 years.
But not with the quality that's needed.
selling this database to every bidder who comes along
If that's what you're afraid of, then make it illegal. In the EU that would already be the case with existing laws.
Did you ever stop long enough to think that just maybe the rise in CO2 levels were part of a natural feedback
We know that the extra CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels. You can verify this for yourself by taking the published numbers for amounts of fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) produced over the last century, and figuring out how much CO2 each produces, and then adding it all up. You'll get a number that's roughly twice the amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere over the same time.
If you think it's a "natural feedback", then explain where this CO2 is actually coming from, and what happened to all the fossil CO2 we've produced.
Ticket scalping has been a problem since these events were created. This is just a new attempt at a solution using technology that didn't exist 2 years ago.
If this wonderful system gives anybody without a ticket a 1 in 100 chance of simply walking through (more if you bear a resemblance to somebody else going, e.g. a sibling) then you're going to have people trying to do just that.
How many people are willing to go through all the effort to show up at an event for a 1% chance of getting in ? If that's 10% of the total amount of people, you only need 0.1% extra empty seats to accommodate them without arguments or fights. That's probably already less than the no-shows.
The chain also allows you to validate legit tickets from counterfeit ones, which is an issue.
The post you replied to already had the answer for that. Legit tickets can be signed by official issuer, and everybody can verify them using the posted public key.
The main issue with current database methods is they only work with the initial purchaser. Blockchain allows you to maintain a robust ledger throughout multiple transactions,
You can simply take all the data from the blockchain ledger, and put it in a database.
recent peer-reviewed data points to 1.3 to 1.6 deg K for doubling of CO2,
The study you linked to gives a 95% confidence range of 1.1 to 4.45. That is in line with other estimates. See also this overview: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
And the CO2 was still low: " the ice revealed atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels that did not exceed 300 parts per million, well below today’s levels"
The kids in the '70s and early '80s didn't use BASIC because they thought it was the best choice, they did it because a decent professional grade C compiler cost hundreds of dollars (close to a thousand in today's dollars)
I thought it was because I was running a 6502 with 12kB of memory and cassette tapes.
But for long after that, in simple C compilers, ++ would use INC if it was available while +=1 and a=a+1 would generate multiple instructions or use ADD immediate (and so take more cycles to execute).
Maybe, but that has nothing to do with the reason they are in the language. Also, I doubt many compilers worked that way (can you name one ?). If I had to write a compiler, the first step would be to generate an abstract syntax tree, where a++, a+= 1 and a = a + 1, would all be represented as assign(a, add(a, 1)). Choosing between inc/add would be done at the code generation phase.
All those extra operators idioms like "+=" and "++" were inherited from its predecessor B** (well actually, adapted from "=+" because of the lexical ambiguity) to match accumulator style instructions common in contemporary instruction sets and to reduce compiler complexity
The first compiler was made on a PDP-7 that didn't even have increment instructions.
The += operator is useful on any platform, simply because it saves you from writing (and reading) the same expression twice.
Slashdot Mirror
Also note, that historically CO2 follows Temps.... i.e. empirically, CO2 isn't a climate driver.
It goes two ways. Rising temperature causes higher CO2, and higher CO2 increases the temperature. During recent ice ages, the temperature changed first (and then got reinforced by the increase in CO2). Right now, the changes start with higher CO2.
There's always a risk that you're going to blow up if you climb in a rocket. If you don't want to accept that risk, don't climb in there.
Also, there has only been one case where a SpaceX rocket exploded during propellant loading, and timing analysis shows that a manned capsule would have been able to activate the emergency abort sequence, and escape the fireball.
https://gfycat.com/TenseClever...
Depends. A 12 degree jump in how much time exactly ?
A few governments (e.g. Inida) use this to ledger land ownership, which cuts down on the type of fraud that involves switching around records or directly altering the database.
A blockchain isn't immune to alterations. You just have to redo all the work from the point where you make the change.
Here's another one that is older, but shows temperature changes coming on very quickly [wikimedia.org].
The scale on that graph is too small to support your argument.
Scalping is only a problem for buyers, not for sellers.
If that were true, the problem could be solved by Ticketmaster auctioning off all tickets instead of selling them for a decent price. They'd make a lot more money.
Ice core data shows a several-hundred-year lag between rising temperatures and higher CO2.
Rising temperature and higher CO2 form a mutual causal relationship. The path from CO2 to temperature is a lot quicker (few decades max), so you don't recognize it in the graphs.
And how the hell is a venue-deployed facial recognition system going to help curb that?
You compare the face with the face in your database of all people that bought a legit ticket. If that doesn't produce a match, you ask for the ticket and ID, and do a manual check.
Facial recognition has been around a lot longer than 2 years.
But not with the quality that's needed.
selling this database to every bidder who comes along
If that's what you're afraid of, then make it illegal. In the EU that would already be the case with existing laws.
Did you ever stop long enough to think that just maybe the rise in CO2 levels were part of a natural feedback
We know that the extra CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels. You can verify this for yourself by taking the published numbers for amounts of fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) produced over the last century, and figuring out how much CO2 each produces, and then adding it all up. You'll get a number that's roughly twice the amount of extra CO2 in the atmosphere over the same time.
If you think it's a "natural feedback", then explain where this CO2 is actually coming from, and what happened to all the fossil CO2 we've produced.
we should be asking why the hell manual identity checks are required in the first place
To combat ticket scalping.
Two years ago no one was talking about this.
Ticket scalping has been a problem since these events were created. This is just a new attempt at a solution using technology that didn't exist 2 years ago.
If this wonderful system gives anybody without a ticket a 1 in 100 chance of simply walking through (more if you bear a resemblance to somebody else going, e.g. a sibling) then you're going to have people trying to do just that.
How many people are willing to go through all the effort to show up at an event for a 1% chance of getting in ? If that's 10% of the total amount of people, you only need 0.1% extra empty seats to accommodate them without arguments or fights. That's probably already less than the no-shows.
The system is meant to replace manual identity checks, not ticket checks.
You can set the system to minimize false positives, and then fall back to manual ticket check for false negatives.
The chain also allows you to validate legit tickets from counterfeit ones, which is an issue.
The post you replied to already had the answer for that. Legit tickets can be signed by official issuer, and everybody can verify them using the posted public key.
The main issue with current database methods is they only work with the initial purchaser. Blockchain allows you to maintain a robust ledger throughout multiple transactions,
You can simply take all the data from the blockchain ledger, and put it in a database.
Look at the longer trend, and you'll see no evidence of volcanic eruptions interfering with the data.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/...
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/...
recent peer-reviewed data points to 1.3 to 1.6 deg K for doubling of CO2,
The study you linked to gives a 95% confidence range of 1.1 to 4.45. That is in line with other estimates. See also this overview: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Closer to 3 degrees according to latest insights.
Data from the past 34 million years (which we have due to trapped atmosphere in bubbles formed on ice sheets)
34 million years, that's funny when oldest ice core is 2.7 million years.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news...
And the CO2 was still low: " the ice revealed atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels that did not exceed 300 parts per million, well below today’s levels"
Providing no external visual reference frame in combination with acceleration is the perfect recipe for inducing nausea
Not a problem, provided that the acceleration is smooth and constant.
gcc is right and every other compiler out there is wrong?
No, gcc is right and the other compilers are right too. Your code is wrong.
The kids in the '70s and early '80s didn't use BASIC because they thought it was the best choice, they did it because a decent professional grade C compiler cost hundreds of dollars (close to a thousand in today's dollars)
I thought it was because I was running a 6502 with 12kB of memory and cassette tapes.
But for long after that, in simple C compilers, ++ would use INC if it was available while +=1 and a=a+1 would generate multiple instructions or use ADD immediate (and so take more cycles to execute).
Maybe, but that has nothing to do with the reason they are in the language. Also, I doubt many compilers worked that way (can you name one ?). If I had to write a compiler, the first step would be to generate an abstract syntax tree, where a++, a+= 1 and a = a + 1, would all be represented as assign(a, add(a, 1)). Choosing between inc/add would be done at the code generation phase.
All those extra operators idioms like "+=" and "++" were inherited from its predecessor B** (well actually, adapted from "=+" because of the lexical ambiguity) to match accumulator style instructions common in contemporary instruction sets and to reduce compiler complexity
The first compiler was made on a PDP-7 that didn't even have increment instructions.
The += operator is useful on any platform, simply because it saves you from writing (and reading) the same expression twice.