All they ever announce is the same products with a new form factor.
Umm.. Yeah.. Cause a 30" display is just a 17" display with a new form factor, right? And, the iMac Hi-Fi is just earbuds with a different form factor, too, right?
If you increase the energy in the system, you'll get more extreme changes in behavior. Humans tend to thrive with a consistent and predictable climate, with relatively small changes in temperature. Therefore, increasing the energy in the system is bad for humans. Seems kind of obvious to me...
Seems obvious to me that you're trying to cover a sweeping statement without any actual support for your position.
I can go into specific examples where that will be the case
Not good enough: you said it would be worse in all cases, so I only need to cite one counter-example to prove you wrong: Increasing temperatures will move the grain belt of the north American continent to higher lattitudes, benefitting Candian farmers.
Take the example of John Hennessy. What exactly did he accomplish apart from what his graduate students developed? Yet, through politics, he was able to transform his students' work into his own success.
I think before we panic we should all stop to realize that this is part of a continuous process of change where red spots are continuously created and destroyed on Jupiter all the time!
NO! No, it's not! There's been just one spot on Jupiter as long as anyone can remember, and this new one MUST be GWB's fault!
What utter nonsense. You've just claimed that increasing the heat in the system makes it worse in all cases. It's simply not possible for every change in weather to be a bad thing, no matter how fervently you insist upon it.
Any boyant object displaces exactly as much water as it takes to equal its weight. Ice displaces as much water at the ice weighs: the same amount of water that you would have if you melted the ice.
And one more effect: greater heat in low lattitudes brings more water into the atmosphere, which can increase precipitation in higher lattitudes, where it can add to glaciers, etc.
AS I understand it, if all the ice melted from Antarctica, the net result would be the continent rising.
The continent would rise, probably by dozens of feet, but not quickly (think tens of thousands of years at least). The sea level would also rise. There are, however, ways to remedy that if we choose to do so. Flooding the Sahara, for instance, could drop the world's sea level by as much as 20 feet, depending on just how much seawater you want to allow to flow across Libya.
More water means more water vapor, which means less heating from the sun.
No. It depends very much on the state of the water in the atmosphere. High clouds increase the albedo of the earth, and reflect sunlight. The same clouds can also reduce heat loss at night. Clouds though, are not water vapor, they are made up of small droplets or crystals of water in the liquid state or solid states. Water vapor is far and away the most significant greenhouse gas; without it, we'd all freeze to death.
The greenhouse gas that gets the most attention in the press is carbon dioxide, which makes up about 25% of the greenhouse effect, while water is responsible for around 70%. We may be able to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm not aware of any proposals to control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Shrink-wrapping the oceans is probably well beyond our means for the forseeable future.
Good point, but to be strictly accurate because of the properties of ICE vs Liquid Water the melting of the Artic ice sheet actually lowers water world wide..
No. The melting of floating ice has no net effect on water level.
Oh, for crying out loud. Show me a digital audio source that's handing you a signal with audible 16Khz components, and I'll show you one that needs better anti-aliasing filters.
Slashdot Mirror
Every Trekkie who ever lived is worth million Tucker Carlsons.
-jcr
a great user interface library in the form of Swing.
You really need to get out more..
-jcr
Friend really, really wants the collector's client list, to warn them about collector's illegal business practices.
That would violate the debtors' privacy. What he could do though, is file a suit for harassment, and seek to register it as a class action.
-jcr
They symbolize Apple moving into Microsofts Media center territory, and are probably the most important announcment since the first iPod.
That's not Microsoft's territory. MS tried, but today it's still Sony, TiVo, and many other consumer electronics companies' territory.
-jcr
Windows Media Center edition?
Not even close.
-jcr
All they ever announce is the same products with a new form factor.
Umm.. Yeah.. Cause a 30" display is just a 17" display with a new form factor, right? And, the iMac Hi-Fi is just earbuds with a different form factor, too, right?
-jcr
Those features are ten a penny on every PC these days.
You have a PC that runs FrontRow? Do tell!
-jcr
If you increase the energy in the system, you'll get more extreme changes in behavior. Humans tend to thrive with a consistent and predictable climate, with relatively small changes in temperature. Therefore, increasing the energy in the system is bad for humans. Seems kind of obvious to me...
Seems obvious to me that you're trying to cover a sweeping statement without any actual support for your position.
I can go into specific examples where that will be the case
Not good enough: you said it would be worse in all cases, so I only need to cite one counter-example to prove you wrong: Increasing temperatures will move the grain belt of the north American continent to higher lattitudes, benefitting Candian farmers.
-jcr
Take the example of John Hennessy. What exactly did he accomplish apart from what his graduate students developed? Yet, through politics, he was able to transform his students' work into his own success.
On what, exactly, do you base this charge?
-jcr
The designer of Algol-60 is only getting this recognition in 2006? What?
-jcr
I think before we panic we should all stop to realize that this is part of a continuous process of change where red spots are continuously created and destroyed on Jupiter all the time!
NO! No, it's not! There's been just one spot on Jupiter as long as anyone can remember, and this new one MUST be GWB's fault!
-jcr
What utter nonsense. You've just claimed that increasing the heat in the system makes it worse in all cases. It's simply not possible for every change in weather to be a bad thing, no matter how fervently you insist upon it.
-jcr
Since the ice excludes salt, when it melts the ocean becomes less dense and raises the sea level slightly
More like "negligibly" than "slightly".
-jcr
Any boyant object displaces exactly as much water as it takes to equal its weight. Ice displaces as much water at the ice weighs: the same amount of water that you would have if you melted the ice.
-jcr
If water expands when frozen, wouldn't that mean that melting floating ice would result in a decrease in sea level?
Are you serious?
-jcr
I'd just like to know how this gadget compares in price to a real pack mule. If our soldiers need mules, why not, oh.... USE SOME REAL MULES?
-jcr
Well, wouldn't it have at least a little bit?
No.
From my science knowledge (high school), shoudn't the liquid state of water take up more space than the solid state?
If that were the case, ice wouldn't float. Water is unusual in that it expands when it freezes. Most other chemicals contract.
-jcr
And one more effect: greater heat in low lattitudes brings more water into the atmosphere, which can increase precipitation in higher lattitudes, where it can add to glaciers, etc.
The whole thing's a chaotic system.
-jcr
AS I understand it, if all the ice melted from Antarctica, the net result would be the continent rising.
The continent would rise, probably by dozens of feet, but not quickly (think tens of thousands of years at least). The sea level would also rise. There are, however, ways to remedy that if we choose to do so. Flooding the Sahara, for instance, could drop the world's sea level by as much as 20 feet, depending on just how much seawater you want to allow to flow across Libya.
More water means more water vapor, which means less heating from the sun.
No. It depends very much on the state of the water in the atmosphere. High clouds increase the albedo of the earth, and reflect sunlight. The same clouds can also reduce heat loss at night. Clouds though, are not water vapor, they are made up of small droplets or crystals of water in the liquid state or solid states. Water vapor is far and away the most significant greenhouse gas; without it, we'd all freeze to death.
The greenhouse gas that gets the most attention in the press is carbon dioxide, which makes up about 25% of the greenhouse effect, while water is responsible for around 70%. We may be able to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, I'm not aware of any proposals to control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. Shrink-wrapping the oceans is probably well beyond our means for the forseeable future.
-jcr
Good point, but to be strictly accurate because of the properties of ICE vs Liquid Water the melting of the Artic ice sheet actually lowers water world wide..
No. The melting of floating ice has no net effect on water level.
-jcr
Only the guilty should give in to those tactics.
Don't you believe it. People get robbed by the threat of litigation every day.
-jcr
The video card in the new Mini is weak.
Actually, it's a substantial step up from the PPC version. See Ken Dyke's comments in this thread.
-jcr
Then I see the actual price....and it costs far more than the original and for what? A new chip? A puny hard drive? Not alot of memory? No DVD writer?
And damn them for leaving out the anti-gravity AGAIN!
-jcr
16kHz? Absymal.
Oh, for crying out loud. Show me a digital audio source that's handing you a signal with audible 16Khz components, and I'll show you one that needs better anti-aliasing filters.
-jcr
media center machine and the stereo system that don't work together particularly well.
Just run a SPDIF cable between them. What else do you want?
-jcr