Please demonstrate how domain names are a "base unit" in our economy. The price of kumquats probably has as much effect on prices as a sub-$1 change in domain prices does.
When we're talking about mean net worth of a billion dollars, the net worth of a homeless person is effectively zero. You can re-do the calculations for the homeless people having net worths of a couple hundred bucks if you like, but it's not going to change the point the slightest bit.
No, actually. IQ is calculated via a mean average, not a median average.
As an example to show why your statement isn't true for that reason, consider the average net worth of a room filled with 99 homeless people and Bill Gates when he was worth a nice round $100 billion. The mean average net worth of the room is $1 billion per person. The median is zero.
Standard deviation matters too - if 99% of people are within a couple IQ points it means something different than a huge range of likely numbers.
People keep bitching about Gmail still being beta, but it's a bit of text on the logo. Considering the fact that many Google betas are more stable than many of Microsoft's released products, I don't see the problem.
If they removed the 'beta' tag, would you be happy with it?
You got me to laugh here. First, 154 nations are right so we must be wrong.
No, but you'll need a pretty good argument why the vast majority of... well, everyone... accepts the scientific data but are still wrong.
When just about every climate scientist and relevant scientific organisation acknowledges the fact of global warming, and the doubters are spouting off long-discredited talking points about volcanoes and Martian warming and whatnot, I'm going to go with one of those groups. Guess which one.
Second, 154 countries "unanimously signed." Well, if you don't sign, what is that?
Every member nation of the IPCC must sign off on the report. If they won't, you go back and re-do the report. That's why the 2001 report could only muster the support for a 60% certainty that humans are causing global warming, and the 2006 could muster support for the 90% figure. It's also why the report is criticised for being too conservative with its predictions.
Got any actual arguments, or is "nuh uh" pretty much it?
"The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states.
Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted."
Funny how three years is good enough to prove Martian global warming to the same people who tell us 150 years of data (and 720,000 from ice cores) just isn't enough to base a conclusion off.
I had a hard time finding good data on forest fire emissions via Google. There's a two gigatons of carbon figure for overall deforestation - fires, logging, etc. - but it's not broken down more than that as far as I can see.
Even if it were that entire two gigaton figure, though, it's a lot smaller than the seven gigatons put off by fossil fuel usage, and much of it can be put down to human activity as well.
The only way we can currently meet a carbon cap that would have any sort of meaningful effect would be to simply turn off 30-40% of the electrical grid and take 30% of the cars off the road. This would instantly shrink our economy by at least 20%.
Good thing the only people suggesting such an idiotic course of action are the anti-global warming strawman killers.
The fact is, even if the worst case scenario plays out the IPCC is saying we might have a 1-2C degree increase in the next 100 years.
Start looking up your figures before you vomit them out onto the Internet, eh?
"World temperatures could rise from anywhere between 1.1 and 6.4C (1.98 to 11.52F) during the 21st century"
Your supposed worst-case is just about their best-case, and they've been criticised for being far too conservative - ignoring recent data showing much faster than expected melting in Antarctica and Greenland.
I love how you think that burning a few billion barrels of oil could have more effect on our planet than a huge fusion reactor just 8 light minutes away.
And what is oil? Stored solar power, when you get down to it.
Burn hundreds of millions of years worth in a century and a half and guess what happens?
The worst case scenario according to IPCC is only a 1 inch sea level rise in 100 years, how is that going to cause a 20% drop in GDP?
No, it's not. They're predicting 4-30, and they've been widely criticised for being too conservative on the issue - ignoring unusually fast melting in Antarctica and Greenland, for one thing.
Sure if sea levels rise 6m it will displace quite a few people, but I still don't think it would cause that much upheaval.
10% of Bangladesh would be under water with a 1 meter sea rise. That's about 15 million refugees in one nation alone, and you can be sure Bangladesh can't afford to pay 10% of their population's land just to let it get eaten up by the ocean.
A 6 metre sea rise would also destroy Miami and a number of other major cities on the East Coast of the US. We're talking about pretty huge repercussions with that big of a sea rise.
The Stern report isn't just pulling numbers out of their asses.
As far as the asteroid is concerned what would your recommendation be?
You're missing my point. The OP stated that the Earth had seen much higher CO2 in the distant past. My point is that just because it has happened previously doesn't mean it'd be fine if it happened again - after all, the Earth started up molten and airless, but that wouldn't be conducive to human survival today.
That is what you environmentalists don't get, you never factor in risk/reward
Again, read the Stern report. For a 1% cost of GDP we protect 10-20% of GDP. How is that not factoring in risk and reward?
On the CO2 front I guess Scientific American got it wrong then I'm just quoting their article verbatim... So either they are lying, or you are, but whatever.
If you have the article in front of you to quote from, surely you can provide a citation?
" The scientists said it was "very likely" -- or more than 90 percent probable -- that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years.
See the defense many Gore fanatics brought forth to defend his gluttony: Sure the coal plants in Tennessee are going overtime to power his mansion, but his investment group invested in some nebulous scheme that might possibly reduce CO2 somewhere.
Actually, as Gore pays higher electrical rates to get clean power, those coal plants aren't doing anything on his behalf.
"Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.
But electric company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never provided them with any information."
I suppose if a huge asteroid were on course to hit Earth, your argument would be "the Earth has been barren and molten rock before! let's not do anything!"?
CO2 levels are not high now.
CO2 levels in the last 720,000 years never went over 300 as we know from the EPICA ice cores. We're over 375 right now.
I love that you're smarter than thousands of climate scientists, essentially every relevant scientific organisation, and the 154 nations who had to unanimously sign off on the IPCC's conclusion that there's a 90% certainty that human activity is causing warming at least in part. When's the Nobel being awarded?
May as well. We contribute less than a percent of the entire amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Everything else comes from volcanoes and water vapor.
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"
Exactly. When the RAZR came out it was selling for $300-$400 with a service plan, and it's just a pretty phone with standard features. People will pay an extra $100 for everything the iPhone offers, no question, especially if Apple can get iPods to sell for $400.
He's ostracised because his opinion is backed up by long-since refuted arguments.
Science has already questioned them and found them lacking. Unless you can point out errors or omissions in their refutations, why shouldn't they stand?
Quicksilver (Mac quick launcher) lets me do Ctrl+Space and type 'calc' - the Calculator app pops up. If I want TextEdit, I type 'text' and it's in the list. Just as easy, and there are oodles more features for those interested - tying together commands, doing common tasks without even opening the app, etc.
No, but if you type (say) "lingerie" in Google and you're looking for pics, not online stores, being able to filter your results down to a specific TLD would be handy.
Slashdot Mirror
Please demonstrate how domain names are a "base unit" in our economy. The price of kumquats probably has as much effect on prices as a sub-$1 change in domain prices does.
That's $4.5 million off every .com and .net in the world. This is supposed to trickle down noticeably?
The average consumer isn't going to lose even a penny over this.
When we're talking about mean net worth of a billion dollars, the net worth of a homeless person is effectively zero. You can re-do the calculations for the homeless people having net worths of a couple hundred bucks if you like, but it's not going to change the point the slightest bit.
Jumped the gun a little on April Fools, didn't you?
No, actually. IQ is calculated via a mean average, not a median average.
As an example to show why your statement isn't true for that reason, consider the average net worth of a room filled with 99 homeless people and Bill Gates when he was worth a nice round $100 billion. The mean average net worth of the room is $1 billion per person. The median is zero.
Standard deviation matters too - if 99% of people are within a couple IQ points it means something different than a huge range of likely numbers.
No offense, but I don't think Apple's ad agency is exactly quivering in their boots right now.
People keep bitching about Gmail still being beta, but it's a bit of text on the logo. Considering the fact that many Google betas are more stable than many of Microsoft's released products, I don't see the problem.
If they removed the 'beta' tag, would you be happy with it?
You got me to laugh here. First, 154 nations are right so we must be wrong.
No, but you'll need a pretty good argument why the vast majority of... well, everyone... accepts the scientific data but are still wrong.
When just about every climate scientist and relevant scientific organisation acknowledges the fact of global warming, and the doubters are spouting off long-discredited talking points about volcanoes and Martian warming and whatnot, I'm going to go with one of those groups. Guess which one.
Second, 154 countries "unanimously signed." Well, if you don't sign, what is that?
Every member nation of the IPCC must sign off on the report. If they won't, you go back and re-do the report. That's why the 2001 report could only muster the support for a 60% certainty that humans are causing global warming, and the 2006 could muster support for the 90% figure. It's also why the report is criticised for being too conservative with its predictions.
Got any actual arguments, or is "nuh uh" pretty much it?
The IPCC has released radiative forcing data for the various greenhouse components, and CO2 is by far the largest component.
You're making the mistake of conflating ozone depletion with global warming, too.
The Mars data is often misunderstood.
"The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states.
Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted."
Funny how three years is good enough to prove Martian global warming to the same people who tell us 150 years of data (and 720,000 from ice cores) just isn't enough to base a conclusion off.
I had a hard time finding good data on forest fire emissions via Google. There's a two gigatons of carbon figure for overall deforestation - fires, logging, etc. - but it's not broken down more than that as far as I can see.
Even if it were that entire two gigaton figure, though, it's a lot smaller than the seven gigatons put off by fossil fuel usage, and much of it can be put down to human activity as well.
The only way we can currently meet a carbon cap that would have any sort of meaningful effect would be to simply turn off 30-40% of the electrical grid and take 30% of the cars off the road. This would instantly shrink our economy by at least 20%.
e ssment_Report:_AR4
Good thing the only people suggesting such an idiotic course of action are the anti-global warming strawman killers.
The fact is, even if the worst case scenario plays out the IPCC is saying we might have a 1-2C degree increase in the next 100 years.
Start looking up your figures before you vomit them out onto the Internet, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC#IPCC_Fourth_Ass
"World temperatures could rise from anywhere between 1.1 and 6.4C (1.98 to 11.52F) during the 21st century"
Your supposed worst-case is just about their best-case, and they've been criticised for being far too conservative - ignoring recent data showing much faster than expected melting in Antarctica and Greenland.
I love how you think that burning a few billion barrels of oil could have more effect on our planet than a huge fusion reactor just 8 light minutes away.
And what is oil? Stored solar power, when you get down to it.
Burn hundreds of millions of years worth in a century and a half and guess what happens?
The worst case scenario according to IPCC is only a 1 inch sea level rise in 100 years, how is that going to cause a 20% drop in GDP?
t y&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:off icial&client=firefox-a
? type=worldNews&storyID=2007-02-02T212335Z_01_NOOTR _RTRJONC_0_India-286068-7.xml
No, it's not. They're predicting 4-30, and they've been widely criticised for being too conservative on the issue - ignoring unusually fast melting in Antarctica and Greenland, for one thing.
Sure if sea levels rise 6m it will displace quite a few people, but I still don't think it would cause that much upheaval.
10% of Bangladesh would be under water with a 1 meter sea rise. That's about 15 million refugees in one nation alone, and you can be sure Bangladesh can't afford to pay 10% of their population's land just to let it get eaten up by the ocean.
A 6 metre sea rise would also destroy Miami and a number of other major cities on the East Coast of the US. We're talking about pretty huge repercussions with that big of a sea rise.
The Stern report isn't just pulling numbers out of their asses.
As far as the asteroid is concerned what would your recommendation be?
You're missing my point. The OP stated that the Earth had seen much higher CO2 in the distant past. My point is that just because it has happened previously doesn't mean it'd be fine if it happened again - after all, the Earth started up molten and airless, but that wouldn't be conducive to human survival today.
That is what you environmentalists don't get, you never factor in risk/reward
Again, read the Stern report. For a 1% cost of GDP we protect 10-20% of GDP. How is that not factoring in risk and reward?
On the CO2 front I guess Scientific American got it wrong then I'm just quoting their article verbatim... So either they are lying, or you are, but whatever.
If you have the article in front of you to quote from, surely you can provide a citation?
I'm reasonably sure I'm not lying, and so is NOAA: Vostok's 420,000 years of data and EPICA's 650,000 years of data, for your perusal
The IPCC did not state anywhere any sort of statistical probability as you state.
http://www.google.com/search?q=IPCC+90%25+certain
" The scientists said it was "very likely" -- or more than 90 percent probable -- that human activities led by burning fossil fuels explained most of the warming in the past 50 years.
That is a toughening from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) last report in 2001, which judged a link as "likely", or 66 percent probable." - http://in.today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx
How does that not support my statement, quoted as follows: "there's a 90% certainty that human activity is causing warming at least in part"?
I don't see #1 - the 60% chance figure - in the 2006 IPCC report. Sure you're not looking at the 2001 report?
See the defense many Gore fanatics brought forth to defend his gluttony: Sure the coal plants in Tennessee are going overtime to power his mansion, but his investment group invested in some nebulous scheme that might possibly reduce CO2 somewhere.
Actually, as Gore pays higher electrical rates to get clean power, those coal plants aren't doing anything on his behalf.
Oh, and according to the power company, the one-man think tank who issued your talking point is full of shit.
"Johnson said his group got its figures from Nashville Electric Service.
But electric company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never provided them with any information."
So, your recommendation would be to cause oh lets just say a 10-15% decline in global GDP because it *MIGHT* help...
The Stern report, authored by the former World Bank chief economist, says more like 1% of global GDP to prevent a 10-20% drop due to warming.
The Earth has been warmer than it is now before!
I suppose if a huge asteroid were on course to hit Earth, your argument would be "the Earth has been barren and molten rock before! let's not do anything!"?
CO2 levels are not high now.
CO2 levels in the last 720,000 years never went over 300 as we know from the EPICA ice cores. We're over 375 right now.
I love that you're smarter than thousands of climate scientists, essentially every relevant scientific organisation, and the 154 nations who had to unanimously sign off on the IPCC's conclusion that there's a 90% certainty that human activity is causing warming at least in part. When's the Nobel being awarded?
May as well. We contribute less than a percent of the entire amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Everything else comes from volcanoes and water vapor.
g as.html
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/vol
"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"
Actually, IIRC, the Swordfish just flew under the AA guns - they couldn't depress enough to hit slow sea-skimming biplanes.
Considering the stated criteria were top candidates - Paul being neither top nor currently technically even a candidate - it makes perfect sense.
And President Bushed earned his money. And just being Presidents takes it's toll on him. Look at before and after shots of former Presidents.
How did he earn his money?
As for the before-and-after shots, take any 58 year old and compare them to their 50 year old photo and you'll likely get similar results.
Exactly. When the RAZR came out it was selling for $300-$400 with a service plan, and it's just a pretty phone with standard features. People will pay an extra $100 for everything the iPhone offers, no question, especially if Apple can get iPods to sell for $400.
He's ostracised because his opinion is backed up by long-since refuted arguments.
Science has already questioned them and found them lacking. Unless you can point out errors or omissions in their refutations, why shouldn't they stand?
I suspect that's per-site, though.
I'm sure KDE has a Quicksilver-like app.
Quicksilver (Mac quick launcher) lets me do Ctrl+Space and type 'calc' - the Calculator app pops up. If I want TextEdit, I type 'text' and it's in the list. Just as easy, and there are oodles more features for those interested - tying together commands, doing common tasks without even opening the app, etc.
No, but if you type (say) "lingerie" in Google and you're looking for pics, not online stores, being able to filter your results down to a specific TLD would be handy.
Yep. From the text:
(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.
Doesn't sound like treating bloggers as lobbyists, it sounds like treating lobbyists posing as bloggers as lobbyists.
As an Apple customer, I want them to keep the forums clear of off-topic clutter so I can find what I need.
What happens now? Which one of us do they pick?