Alice: Hello Cats.com, I would like to login as alice@gmail
Cats.com: Please, provide me proof with nonce 98765
Conversation between Alice and Gmail
Alice: Hi Gmail, can you verify that I own alice@gmail with nonce 98765
Gmail: Certainly, Just login
Alice: OK, here's my password
Gmail: Here's a signed assertion that alice@gmail logged in and provided the nonce 98765
Conversation between Alice and Cats.com
Alice: Hi Cats.com, here's Gmail's signed assertion that I logged in and provided nonce 98765
Cats.com: Thanks Alice. Now I know that you are the owner of alice@gmail account
Of course the browser is doing most of the work for Alice and the browser can and might be storing all of her details and perhaps Alice asked the browser to keep these details for her convenience.
Who cares? He lived to tell his grandkids a whale of a tale! If you and your lovely wife alone survived while all others did not, you'd likely ascribe divine inspiration as well.
People are finally starting to get over the 'climate may be changing' thing, a process which has long been delayed by the heavily politicized 'why' question. It's more accurate to think of it in terms of climate changing due to a number of factors, some of which humans are responsible for, than to entirely assign blame one way or another. For one thing, it's not remotely accurate to say that climate change is something humans are totally responsible for; to do so is to ignore natural cyclical fluctuations of that climate.
That is correct. Humans are not totally responsible for climate change, but humans are mostly responsible for temperature rise. Look, it's not rocket science: add greenhouse gases and radiation (sun light) to an environment (like an actual glass greenhouse) and the temperature will rise. We know how much CO2, CH4, and other gases humans are dumping in the air and we have a pretty good idea what effect that will have and is having. This is not disputed by anyone with an advanced degree in chemistry, physics, climate science, nor most horticulturists. There is debate about the precise working of clouds, precipitation, feedback, absorption, etc, but not the general principal. We know that greenhouse gas levels have been moderately constant for 10 000 years and we know that the 50% increase in the past fifty years would not have happened without humans. These are indisputable facts. The greenhouse gasses that humans have added to the atmosphere have brought the Earth to levels not experienced in the past 800 000 years, and very likely not in the past 20 millions years (keep in mind the FA referenced events 5 million years ago), and we keep pumping more and more into the atmosphere!
Unfortunately your link has nothing to do with glacial periods or ice ages. It only shows an graph of the temperature at antarctica.
Also: is it a mean temperature? What is the graph supposed to mean? As it is slightly above zero degrees most of the time, the graphbmakes no sense at all anyway.
We are still in the Quaternary ice age and have been for 2.6 million years. The link most certainly has something to do with glacial periods, at least eight of them, on the order of 100 000 years. On thousand year scales, we can easily deduce ice volume and how much of the Earth is frozen from global average temperature.
Ice cores from around the world correlate on decade scales, perfect correlation on 100 000 year scales. The reason Antarctica is more interesting than say Greenland is simply because Antarctica is deepest, oldest, most stable.
The temperature is variation from mean. Plus and minus 5 C is quite significant. It's more than the difference between a glacial and interglacial period -- precisely what the graph demonstrates for you.
Please explain why you are sure that the cessation of the ice age, with an accompanying moderation in temperature, is not what permitted human agriculture -- and not the reverse.
I believe the previous commenter IS proposing that retreating glaciers and moderate temperature DID permit agriculture. Or are you proposing that agriculture, planting seed in snow and ice, caused the cessation of the ice age and moderation in temperature?
FYI, we are still in an ice age known as the Quaternary period which began roughly 2.6 million years ago. The glaciation on the order of 100 000 years of which I think you are referring is the Late Pleistocene era. This was a time when Neanderthal, mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers roamed the earth. They died out as glaciers such as those around the Great Lakes and the Baltic retreated and sea level rose 35 meters to roughly its present level. The moderate Holocene period beginning about 11700 years ago through present saw moderate flucatuations +/- 0.5 C (though the temperature rise of the past 150 years is unprecedented in the past 10000).
It is possible that modern humans killed off the Neanderthal and megafauna during this Mesolithic age of human technology (ie stone age). Perhaps they caused the global temperatures to rise 2 C in a short period of time around 12000 years ago. A more likely explanation (given that we've actually seen evidence) is that the Earth collided with numerous meteorites. Incidentally, the resultant megatsunamis are a likely explanation for the Noah and Gilgamesh flood myths.
We are coming out of a glaciation period (a little ice age if you will) on the order of 100 000 years. Given a fairly predictable periodic pattern we would expect to peak and cool in the next 1500 years leading to another several thousand year glaciation. But due to fossil fuel burning we are likely to skip that glaciation and enter acyclical warming.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16439807
Why shouldn't Antarctica melt? CO2 concentrations are similar to levels of 15 millions years ago (the article references 5 million years ago) and CO2 levels are accelerating due to increased fossil fuel burning and past accumulation (and methane released from permafrost melt). 15 million years ago temperatures were 5 C warmer than today and the ocean was likely 40 meters higher than today.
Antarctica has a massive sheet of ice no doubt but it is melting with no sign of slowing down. If the north pole can be ice free in September (likely within a decade) then Antarctica could be ice free in March (albeit quite a bit more into the future).
The denier label is dismissive. Those who suck up nonsense are neither sceptical nor deniers, they are brainwashed. Those that manufacture doubt and confusion are well funded propagandising deniers.
YES, humans are accelerating global warming. We've known that for years. NO, a great fraction of species on earth will go extinct. It is an open question whether human species can adapt fast enough to survive the next 200 years.
IPCC is incredibly conservative. For one thing it doesn't consider methane released from permafrost because the data is new and the cut off for new article submissions was years ago. We're expected to release a minimum of 135 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent in our lifetime and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
You read one article from your armchair and think, "hey good going, look into this"? There's been active research in climate cycles and mass extinction events since the 1800's.
Some causes are the precession, solar output, and meteors as you mention. CO2 and temperature are co-dependent feedback variables. Raise CO2, temperature rises. Raise temperature, CO2 rises. (same in reverse and hense we see a very cyclical 100 000 year pattern). It doesn't matter what triggers it. By all evidence we are on the up slope of the 100 000 year cycle, with or without human interference. But humans are certainly exacerbating the warming through burning.
The article says that when the oceans were 20 meters higher five million years ago the CO2 levels were similar, but in fact CO2 levels were less than the 400 ppm we have today, and levels are sky rocketing (in geologic and human time).
CO2 levels were over 400 ppm 15 million years ago at a time when no humans were alive nor could have survived. Temperatures were 5 C warmer and oceans were 40 meters higher than today. That's the course we are headed toward.
Suppose we were to organize a riot against the state in protest over violations of privacy. We'd be thwarted. Suppose we try to organize over real issues such as global warming, energy shock, systemic economic collapse? We the soon powerless starving majority at home will be the enemy of state.
"Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances." -- Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies, Department of Defense, April 2013 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-12/html/2013-07802.htm January 2013 http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C18.txt
"Environmental destruction, whether caused by human behavior or cataclysmic mega-disasters such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunamis. Problems of this scope may overwhelm the capacity of local authorities to respond, and may even overtax national militaries, requiring a larger international response." -- http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionX.html 2006
"... anti-government and radical ideologies that potentially threaten government stability." -- Army Modernisation Strategy, Department of Defense, 2008
"DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance." -- Strategic Studies Institute, 2008
"Climate change would lead to increased risk of... tsunamis, typhoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural catastrophes... Furthermore, if such a catastrophe occurs within the United States itself - particularly when the nation's economy is in a fragile state or where US military bases or key civilian infrastructure are broadly affected - the damage to US security could be considerable.... A severe energy crunch is inevitable [by 2015] without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions." -- US Joint Forces Command, 2010
"climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked." -- Quadrennial Defense Review, Department of Defense, 2010
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who for some reason chairs the IPCC
The same Dr. Pachauri who was the director of the energy and resource institute of India, chancellor and fellow at several the universities in several countries, chairman of the agriculture foundation, chairman of climate board at Colombia University, senior advisor at Yale, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, advisor to several oil companies, manufacturers and banks?
the independent variable normally goes on the X axis (horizontal). In the case of learning, "effort" is the independent variable since "knowledge acquired" depends on "effort" and not the other way around. By that model a steep learning curve is one where a little bit of effort gains you a lot of knowledge.
That was the first insightful thing I've read on/. Thanks for making me go 'huh'.
Libertarianism ensures efficient capitalism and nothing else. Considering economic arguments for social welfare (health, education, employment resources, family planning), it is clear that the American system fails. Americans are generally so afraid to loose their jobs that they are overworked and will take nearly anything, without further education when they find themselves unemployed.
However, I do not think Norway is a fair example. Its tax system creates disinsentives whose inefficiencies are masked by great oil wealth. But Scandinavia in general is a model for the world.
Taxes above 50% means property is more communinal than individual and thus technically closer to communism than capitalism. I happen to appreciate talking philosophy with drunk bums without locking my doors, because no one is in need, but that's just me.
1474 Venetian Statute granted patent monopoly for 10 years after communicating a new invention to the Republic
1491 Peter of Ravenna secured from the Republic of Venice exclusive right to print and sell Phoenix
1449 Henry VI of England grants a 20 year letters patent to a Flemish manufacturer of stained glass
1623 Statute of Monopolies limits patents to only new or newly imported inventions under King James I of England
1709 The Statute of Anne vests authors with a 14 year monopoly of reproduction in Great Britain
1787 Article I of the United States Constitution empowers Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
1790 Copyright Act provides a 14 year renewable copyright in the United States
[... 200 years of intellectual monopoly extensions...]
1994 WTO's Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights set minimum copyright terms to 50 years post mortem, 20 year patent monopoly, automatic copyright, defines computer programs as literary works, constrains terms of fair use, and requires that patents are granted in all fields of technology
1998 Copyright Term Extension Act extended copyright to 70 years post mortem in the United States
1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalized technology that circumvents measures to protect copyright in the United States
2001 Directive 2001/29/EC criminalized technology that circumvents measures to protect copyright in the European Union
2005 the Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (2002/0047/COD) was rejected by the European Parliament
2006 Pirate Party of Sweden founded with an agenda to reform intellectual property laws and the right to privacy with similar political parties sprouting elsewhere in the world
Slashdot Mirror
Of course the browser is doing most of the work for Alice and the browser can and might be storing all of her details and perhaps Alice asked the browser to keep these details for her convenience.
And how, exactly, did No know to build an ark?
Who cares? He lived to tell his grandkids a whale of a tale! If you and your lovely wife alone survived while all others did not, you'd likely ascribe divine inspiration as well.
I don't believe communist scientists. I get my information from blogs funded by the oil industry.
People are finally starting to get over the 'climate may be changing' thing, a process which has long been delayed by the heavily politicized 'why' question. It's more accurate to think of it in terms of climate changing due to a number of factors, some of which humans are responsible for, than to entirely assign blame one way or another. For one thing, it's not remotely accurate to say that climate change is something humans are totally responsible for; to do so is to ignore natural cyclical fluctuations of that climate.
That is correct. Humans are not totally responsible for climate change, but humans are mostly responsible for temperature rise. Look, it's not rocket science: add greenhouse gases and radiation (sun light) to an environment (like an actual glass greenhouse) and the temperature will rise. We know how much CO2, CH4, and other gases humans are dumping in the air and we have a pretty good idea what effect that will have and is having. This is not disputed by anyone with an advanced degree in chemistry, physics, climate science, nor most horticulturists. There is debate about the precise working of clouds, precipitation, feedback, absorption, etc, but not the general principal. We know that greenhouse gas levels have been moderately constant for 10 000 years and we know that the 50% increase in the past fifty years would not have happened without humans. These are indisputable facts. The greenhouse gasses that humans have added to the atmosphere have brought the Earth to levels not experienced in the past 800 000 years, and very likely not in the past 20 millions years (keep in mind the FA referenced events 5 million years ago), and we keep pumping more and more into the atmosphere!
Unfortunately your link has nothing to do with glacial periods or ice ages. It only shows an graph of the temperature at antarctica. Also: is it a mean temperature? What is the graph supposed to mean? As it is slightly above zero degrees most of the time, the graphbmakes no sense at all anyway.
We are still in the Quaternary ice age and have been for 2.6 million years. The link most certainly has something to do with glacial periods, at least eight of them, on the order of 100 000 years. On thousand year scales, we can easily deduce ice volume and how much of the Earth is frozen from global average temperature. Ice cores from around the world correlate on decade scales, perfect correlation on 100 000 year scales. The reason Antarctica is more interesting than say Greenland is simply because Antarctica is deepest, oldest, most stable. The temperature is variation from mean. Plus and minus 5 C is quite significant. It's more than the difference between a glacial and interglacial period -- precisely what the graph demonstrates for you.
As a resident, I can tell you that land is not cheap in Greenland.
Please explain why you are sure that the cessation of the ice age, with an accompanying moderation in temperature, is not what permitted human agriculture -- and not the reverse.
I believe the previous commenter IS proposing that retreating glaciers and moderate temperature DID permit agriculture. Or are you proposing that agriculture, planting seed in snow and ice, caused the cessation of the ice age and moderation in temperature? FYI, we are still in an ice age known as the Quaternary period which began roughly 2.6 million years ago. The glaciation on the order of 100 000 years of which I think you are referring is the Late Pleistocene era. This was a time when Neanderthal, mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers roamed the earth. They died out as glaciers such as those around the Great Lakes and the Baltic retreated and sea level rose 35 meters to roughly its present level. The moderate Holocene period beginning about 11700 years ago through present saw moderate flucatuations +/- 0.5 C (though the temperature rise of the past 150 years is unprecedented in the past 10000). It is possible that modern humans killed off the Neanderthal and megafauna during this Mesolithic age of human technology (ie stone age). Perhaps they caused the global temperatures to rise 2 C in a short period of time around 12000 years ago. A more likely explanation (given that we've actually seen evidence) is that the Earth collided with numerous meteorites. Incidentally, the resultant megatsunamis are a likely explanation for the Noah and Gilgamesh flood myths.
We are coming out of a glaciation period (a little ice age if you will) on the order of 100 000 years. Given a fairly predictable periodic pattern we would expect to peak and cool in the next 1500 years leading to another several thousand year glaciation. But due to fossil fuel burning we are likely to skip that glaciation and enter acyclical warming. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16439807
Why shouldn't Antarctica melt? CO2 concentrations are similar to levels of 15 millions years ago (the article references 5 million years ago) and CO2 levels are accelerating due to increased fossil fuel burning and past accumulation (and methane released from permafrost melt). 15 million years ago temperatures were 5 C warmer than today and the ocean was likely 40 meters higher than today. Antarctica has a massive sheet of ice no doubt but it is melting with no sign of slowing down. If the north pole can be ice free in September (likely within a decade) then Antarctica could be ice free in March (albeit quite a bit more into the future).
The denier label is dismissive. Those who suck up nonsense are neither sceptical nor deniers, they are brainwashed. Those that manufacture doubt and confusion are well funded propagandising deniers.
YES, humans are accelerating global warming. We've known that for years. NO, a great fraction of species on earth will go extinct. It is an open question whether human species can adapt fast enough to survive the next 200 years.
IPCC is incredibly conservative. For one thing it doesn't consider methane released from permafrost because the data is new and the cut off for new article submissions was years ago. We're expected to release a minimum of 135 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent in our lifetime and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
You read one article from your armchair and think, "hey good going, look into this"? There's been active research in climate cycles and mass extinction events since the 1800's.
Some causes are the precession, solar output, and meteors as you mention. CO2 and temperature are co-dependent feedback variables. Raise CO2, temperature rises. Raise temperature, CO2 rises. (same in reverse and hense we see a very cyclical 100 000 year pattern). It doesn't matter what triggers it. By all evidence we are on the up slope of the 100 000 year cycle, with or without human interference. But humans are certainly exacerbating the warming through burning.
The article says that when the oceans were 20 meters higher five million years ago the CO2 levels were similar, but in fact CO2 levels were less than the 400 ppm we have today, and levels are sky rocketing (in geologic and human time).
CO2 levels were over 400 ppm 15 million years ago at a time when no humans were alive nor could have survived. Temperatures were 5 C warmer and oceans were 40 meters higher than today. That's the course we are headed toward.
Surely Allah caused a flood only 7000 years ago. It says so in Gilgamesh XI 700 BCC
divide and confuse; polarise and conquer
Suppose we were to organize a riot against the state in protest over violations of privacy. We'd be thwarted. Suppose we try to organize over real issues such as global warming, energy shock, systemic economic collapse? We the soon powerless starving majority at home will be the enemy of state.
"Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances."
-- Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies, Department of Defense, April 2013
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-12/html/2013-07802.htm
January 2013 http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C18.txt
"Environmental destruction, whether caused by human behavior or cataclysmic mega-disasters such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunamis. Problems of this scope may overwhelm the capacity of local authorities to respond, and may even overtax national militaries, requiring a larger international response."
-- http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionX.html 2006
"... anti-government and radical ideologies that potentially threaten government stability."
-- Army Modernisation Strategy, Department of Defense, 2008
"DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance."
-- Strategic Studies Institute, 2008
"Climate change would lead to increased risk of ... tsunamis, typhoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural catastrophes... Furthermore, if such a catastrophe occurs within the United States itself - particularly when the nation's economy is in a fragile state or where US military bases or key civilian infrastructure are broadly affected - the damage to US security could be considerable. ... A severe energy crunch is inevitable [by 2015] without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions."
-- US Joint Forces Command, 2010
"climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked."
-- Quadrennial Defense Review, Department of Defense, 2010
DFRM - digital fu€king restrictions manipulation
No warming for 17 years
See 17 years in a 40 year context and in the 130 year temperature record.
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the railroad engineer who for some reason chairs the IPCC
The same Dr. Pachauri who was the director of the energy and resource institute of India, chancellor and fellow at several the universities in several countries, chairman of the agriculture foundation, chairman of climate board at Colombia University, senior advisor at Yale, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, advisor to several oil companies, manufacturers and banks?
"how much effort do I need to acquire certain knowledge?", rather than "how much knowledge do I acquire with given effort?"
Those are identical directed statements: "how much effort --(to)--> knowledge?" vs "how much knowledge --(from/with)-- effort?"
Recording mode is your friend...Type "qq"...Now type "@q"
Or "@@" to repeat the previous macro, in the above case 'q'.
start of the file, just type "1G"
Similarly 'gg' is slightly easier to type and 'G' will take you to the end.
the independent variable normally goes on the X axis (horizontal). In the case of learning, "effort" is the independent variable since "knowledge acquired" depends on "effort" and not the other way around. By that model a steep learning curve is one where a little bit of effort gains you a lot of knowledge.
That was the first insightful thing I've read on /. Thanks for making me go 'huh'.
Libertarianism ensures efficient capitalism and nothing else. Considering economic arguments for social welfare (health, education, employment resources, family planning), it is clear that the American system fails. Americans are generally so afraid to loose their jobs that they are overworked and will take nearly anything, without further education when they find themselves unemployed.
However, I do not think Norway is a fair example. Its tax system creates disinsentives whose inefficiencies are masked by great oil wealth. But Scandinavia in general is a model for the world.
Taxes above 50% means property is more communinal than individual and thus technically closer to communism than capitalism. I happen to appreciate talking philosophy with drunk bums without locking my doors, because no one is in need, but that's just me.
1474 Venetian Statute granted patent monopoly for 10 years after communicating a new invention to the Republic
...]
d igitized/
1491 Peter of Ravenna secured from the Republic of Venice exclusive right to print and sell Phoenix
1449 Henry VI of England grants a 20 year letters patent to a Flemish manufacturer of stained glass
1623 Statute of Monopolies limits patents to only new or newly imported inventions under King James I of England
1709 The Statute of Anne vests authors with a 14 year monopoly of reproduction in Great Britain
1787 Article I of the United States Constitution empowers Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
1790 Copyright Act provides a 14 year renewable copyright in the United States
[... 200 years of intellectual monopoly extensions
1994 WTO's Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights set minimum copyright terms to 50 years post mortem, 20 year patent monopoly, automatic copyright, defines computer programs as literary works, constrains terms of fair use, and requires that patents are granted in all fields of technology
1998 Copyright Term Extension Act extended copyright to 70 years post mortem in the United States
1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalized technology that circumvents measures to protect copyright in the United States
2001 Directive 2001/29/EC criminalized technology that circumvents measures to protect copyright in the European Union
2005 the Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (2002/0047/COD) was rejected by the European Parliament
2006 Pirate Party of Sweden founded with an agenda to reform intellectual property laws and the right to privacy with similar political parties sprouting elsewhere in the world
http://genaud.net/2006/11/the-revolution-will-be-
Obfuscating the code is not just against the spirit but the letter of the license:
GPL: Section 3: Paragraph 5: Sentence 1:
"""
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
"""
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
(about half-way through after a,b,c)
I cleared all my bookmarks upgrading a previous version, after reading rave reviews about reimporting old bookmarks (appearently on Windows).
Before I update from 0.9RC to 0.9, is there a way to save bookmarks? Perhaps as an HTML file?