No, I think the future is in Flash. But the 10% figure the Microsoft guy quoted was for HD players - so the Shuffle and the Nano don't count for the purposes of examining the 10% number.
10% of the market = 10% of the units sold in period (7 months from start of December to end of June). We're talking the hard-disk-based players here, BTW, as per the interview.
Apple doesn't have a market share of 100 million iPods. They've got an _installed base_ of 100 million iPods. During the first three months of '07, Apple sold 10,549,000 iPods - but the Shuffle and the Nano don't count (flash-based). Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that about half the iPods Apple sell are the HD models, and that they'll sell about the same again the April-June period. So you're looking at about 8-10 million HD iPods sold in the period described. Suddenly, a 10% market share for the Zune selling about 1 million in the same period isn't unrealistic.
I think we can assume that the Microsoft guy got the size of the market right - he may be exaggerating sales by including units still in the channels and not with customers, but the size of the market is right.
Still, I don't know who buys these things. But then, I don't think MS sells them in Australia yet, so that's hardly surprising for me.
There are many Christian groups that _don't_ trust modern medicine, particularly fundamentalist groups. The Seventh-Day Adventists come to mind...
And it's not that taking the bible as a series of parables makes it worthless, it just that doing so strips it of the authority of being the Word of God. When you can pick and choose, or interpret as you see fit, it stops being, well, Holy Writ, and just becomes an historical and cultural document, no different to Aesop's Fables (except that they teach better moral lessons...)
Believing in evolution means you toss out large chunks of the bible, at least with the old testament. In particular, the acceptance of "Deep Time", required for evolution and geology, tosses away the idea that a diety created Earth only a few thousand years ago, put humans on it fully formed in a garden, then kicked them out into the wide word.
Accepting evolution and other modern scientific viewpoints increasingly forces you to treat the Bible as a set of parables, not the literal word of God. And if it's just a bunch of parables, where does it's definitive authority, and the authority of religion come from?
No, it's very easy to see why many deeply religious Christians have problems with evolution....
Sounds bogus to me. There's lots of reasons you may be ordering less oil:
* kids have moved out from home, so you're only heating part of the house now. * you've lost your job, so you're economising and putting up with being cold. * you put in top-quality insulation, and now the house only needs about 1/3rd as much heating * you decide to go on a long vacation over winter, so you're not home to use the heater (no oil) * you've gone green and now heat your house from the methane produced in your compost heap. * so on and so forth...
This is nothing like a fixed rate mortgage - with a fixed rate mortgage, you've obtained a quantity of money in advance, and need to pay it back. This is more like a "fixed rate credit card" - when the rate is really good, you use the card a lot, but when it's not effective, you don't (after paying it off).
Now, if they offer a deal like: "We will offer you (this good price) as long as you buy (this quantity or more)" (thus making the implicit explicit), that's fine. Volume pricing works well, and there's no subjectivity about "what my house should use". They can even build in penalty clauses if they want - the point is, it's all upfront and open.
Apple only puts DRM on content sold through the iTMS _if_ the content provider (and presumably copyright holder) asks for it. It's not automatic.
You can even buy non-DRMed material via the iTMS - there are some independent labels up there who don't want to use DRM. It's still AAC, but it's not DRMed.
As Jobs said - if the music industry is concerned about the DRM lock-in created by Apple, there's an easy fix: don't use DRM.
This may sound obvious, but I'd say you've got the "Boot on LAN" support enabled in your BIOS. This allows your computer to be started in response to network commands (great for corporate IT shops, for example, where they push updates out overnight). However, it obviously means that your network card stays active even when "off".
The forgetten aspect of abolition was it had almost no economic impact on the North. The North was rapidly industrializing and had little or no dependence on slave labor. Unfortunately the South was economically completely dependent on plantation agriculture. Freeing the slaves overnight was effectively a form of economic warfare by the North on the South that would inevitably lead to economic devastation in the South as cotton and tobacco production cratered. Southerners were upset for a reason, the mandate from Washington was going to wipe out the whole region economically, and they were facing financial ruin.
I call BS on this. The North had a slave economy when they started their own abolition campaigns - the Northern states had put in phased emancipation as early as 1804, giving their economies time to adapt.
Rather than agree to phased emancipation, the South refused to consider it. Yes, the result of an immediate abolition and emancipation would have been an economic disaster for the South, but it was their own fault - the powers-that-be in the South had actively opposed phased emancipation programs for over 60 years by that point. The writing was on the wall for a long time - the British had declared slave trading a crime in 1807 for English ships, and an act of piracy in 1827. Imports of slaves into the South had been in a steep decline for over a decade by 1863.
The South seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy following the election of Lincoln - the first president to be overwhelmingly rejected in several states. Lincoln got in because the more populous Northern states had more electoral college votes. He represented a change in the power balance - until then, the Southern block had controlled the Union.
Lincoln viewed the secession as illegal, and that the Confederate states had no legal right to break away. That said, he tolerated the secession, but insisted that the Union still controlled federal property in the South, and refused to negotiate. The Confederacy were the ones who actually initiated hostile action, when they attacked Fort Sumter - one of the three Union-held forts in the South whose commanders had not defected to the Confederacy.
Interestingly, by seceding from the Union, the Confederacy made Lincoln stronger. He'd originally been slated as a President facing a hostile Senate and a lukewarm (at best) Congress. After the secession, the Southern delegates were no longer there to oppose Lincoln. That, and violent riots in Maryland that the State government refused to stop, gave Lincoln a lot of power.
The South could have put in programs of their own to result in a smooth emancipation process. However, the slavery issue was just the most visible symptom of their real worry - being turned into an economic backwater and losing political power in the Union.
Yes, it would be punishment. Deserved punishment for the fact they accepted the federal handouts in the first place.
Realistically, though, you'd need to get a significant number of states willing to do this to affect change. However, you won't even get one - the dynamics with the voters mitigates against it.
In a democracy, the voters get the government they deserve.
Nobody likes to pay tax. They like the services they get, but they don't like paying tax. So state politicians vote both to decrease taxes and increase spending programs. They fund this through federal taxes. People don't bitch about federal taxes as much, because the people the next state over pay the same. Federal politicians in turn promise to spend federal tax dollars in their electorate. Or, as Tom Clancy put it: "Vote for me, because I'll really stick it to those folks in North Dakota."
The result is the federal government gets power over the states, because the _voters_ in the states want it that way.
If you want to change it, then campaign to have _your_ state reduce the money they accept from the federal government. Vote _against_ federal politicians who send federal money into your electorates. Have it hit you in your wallet, and the wallets of your neighbours. Get other people around the country to do it. Anything else is just bitching.
The states have only themselves to blame for allowing the federal government to have so much control over them via the purse strings.
If they wanted more independence, they simply need to raise the money they need through their own taxes instead of waiting for grants from the federal coffers.
That's just a reflection of your experience. In practice, it's very difficult for you, as a person, to be able to judge a difference of 1 C, let alone 1 F.
Having grown up with the metric system, it's simple:
35+ is too damn hot.
30+ is merely very hot.
25-30 is nicely warm.
20-25 is comfortable, but cool
15-20 is cool
10-15 is even cooler - wear a jacket or sweater
5-10 is cold; thicker jacket
0 - 5 is very cold.
Now, those comfort levels are _mine_ - I grew up in a tropical environment, so I have a preference for warmer temperatures than colder temperatures, and it shows. The 20-25 range is what most people define as comfortable; office air-conditioning is meant to be set to 24C, for example.
As for the upper-end of the scale not being used? It's used all the time - in things like cooking. Want to warm something below the boiling point? 80-90C works fine. Doing a roast of beef? 180C for 30 minutes/500g. See, it's easy.
A great point. Apple and Cisco probably already have an agreement-in-principle about the use of the trademark, but the paperwork wasn't finalized in time for the conference.
Given the way that US trademark law works, where you have to actively defend your trademark, Cisco _has_ to sue Apple to show that they are defending their trademark, otherwise anyone would be able to abuse it. However, just because they lodge a lawsuit doesn't mean that they've got an army of trained attack lawyers ready to take Apple down.
My bet is that it's purely a pro-forma move to defend the trademark, which will get dropped the instant the paperwork for the agreement is done.
Actually, I just forgot that you guys hold a lot of different elections on the one day... my bad.
I would argue that a "none-of-the-above" option is what you want, instead of allowing no selection. The article still makes it sound like there was no vote recorded at all.
Still, what I'm really arguing is that the fact that there was some testing done by the state is not sufficient grounds to conclude that the software didn't have bugs.
There's definitely something screwy going on. From the article, about 18000 votes were accepted that didn't actually vote for anything. Now, if I was designing an e-voting package, there's no way I'd mark a vote as accepted if it didn't vote for something, especially in a country like the US where voting is not mandatory. After all, if they've bothered to turn up at the voting booth, you can assume they actually intended to vote.
(The situation is a little different in my home country of Australia - mandatory voting means that we might get something out of having a "none-of-the-above" option)
I also wouldn't put much faith in the "two parallel tests" done by the state. Absolutely nothing tests code like the real world, and the fact that both tests revealed "100 percent accuracy" when errors were detected on all models of e-voting machines during the US Congressional elections just means that the tests weren't very good. I doubt very much that the tests involved as many as 18000 voters in the first place, not to mention underpaid and overworked electoral officials trying to help a horde of undereducated and over-opinionated voters, with only a couple of hours training conducted a couple of months before.
The court ruled that the "conjecture" of lost votes didn't warrant over-riding the trade secret status of the e-voting machine code. This is a mistake - an expert review could easily conducted under a NDA, thus protecting the trade secret status. Not to mention that the tools of democracy shouldn't have trade secret status in the first place... without examining the code, how does anyone know that there isn't a little switch saying "On Super Tuesday, switch into rig-the-election mode"? (Not that I think there is - it's just that there's no way to disprove it). Nor do you need to go the full open-source route for this - just like the expert review, a panel of experts could easily be responsible for certifying e-voting machines without any risk of the code being exposed.\
As an Australian, I should point out here that we're not in "1-in-1000 year" drought. Point in fact, there was a feature in the Australian today about this. The second-wettest year on record in Australia was 2000.
The problem isn't lack of rainfall. The problem is that rainfall patterns have shifted - it no longer rains as much as it used to in certain areas, and it now rains more than it used to. In particular, this is screwing up dams - most of the catchment areas for them are now getting less rainfall. This is stuffing up irrigation, which makes the farmers pissed off because they ignored the fact that we live in a sunburnt country and don't plant to suit the prevailing conditions.
In this land of droughts and flooding rains, we have farmers who plant crops and raise livestock requiring intensive irrigation. According to the CSIRO it takes about 750 litres of water to grow one kilogram of oven-dry wheat grain. It also takes up to 100,000 litres of water to produce just one kilogram of beef, and 170,000 litres of water to produce 1 kg of clean wool. Something like 75% of all water utilisation in Australia is by farmers - about 10% of water is used in cities groaning under Level 4 water restrictions, with the remaining 15% used by heavy industry. A lot of this water "goes overseas" in a way.
What Australia needs is a way of shifting water around more efficiently, to take it from the areas which have too much and direct it to the places it's needed. Initiatives like Beattie's "water grid" will help. Moving the users of water would help, too - most of Australia's agriculture is based around the Murray-Darling basin, which has been hit hard by the drought. Areas like northern Australia and Tasmania, by contrast, are under-developed agriculturally and have plenty of water.
Any chance of these slides causing tsunamis in Atlantic ?
Some, but not much... mostly, these will break off inland, so they won't drop. The slides themselves will be fairly gentle... more of a drift than a rush. You'd only get a tsunami if a large area was undercut and snapped off. Even so, this wouldn't be big enough to do much damage except maybe to Iceland.
A number of similar slabs have broken off from Antarctica, and there's been no tsunami as a result.
*sigh* Global warming is not quite that simple, and frankly you're either an idiot or a troll.
What global warming means is that there is more energy in the weather systems of the world. That energy gets expressed as more _extreme_ temperature. The snow storms in Denver at the moment are just as much a symptom of global warming as the heat waves in Europe were in summer.
The weather is a vast engine that pumps heat energy around the globe. Global warming will result in this engine becoming unstable. One aspect of that may well be a complete breakdown of the heat-transfer mechanisms in the North Atlantic - which, in turn, would see glaciers in New York before too long, while, at the same time, causing the icecaps in Greenland and Antarctica to melt.
Climatology is hard. So's being a sane person with a brain, and not a troll.
Depends how much the ice has moved. Glacial movements wear down mountains; Scandinavia doesn't have much in the way of mountains because glaciers have grown and shrunk back and forth over it a lot.
Glaciers have covered Greenland for a long time. Sheer pressure of weight won't wear down mountains at all.
Look at Antarctica - it's got several mountain ranges of decent size (3k+ - going up to 4897m at Mt Vinson - that's higher than any mountain in the Alps or the Rockies)
What happens is that warming causes ice near the edges to melt. This dumps cold freshwater into the water nearby, disrupting warmer ocean currents. It also increases humidity. Due to the disrupted ocean currents, the prevailing winds go inland, taking the humid air with it. This gets dumped as snow in the middle, causing the central ice dome to increase. A similar effect occurs in Antartica, where the central ice dome is about 4ks thick.
As shown in the link you provided, _below_ 1500m, the average change was a shrinking of 2cm (+- 0.9cm). Yes, the overall effect was to increase the thickness of the ice dome, but the dome is definitely getting more pronounced.
What the models predict next, however, is that as the slope of the dome gets more steeper, it gets unstable. You then get large stress fractures occurring, and huge slabs - say, about the size of New York State - break off and slide down to the ocean. Fun stuff.
Also, there's ice and there's ice. Old ice is very dense - it's been compressed over thousands or even millions of years, and contains more water by volume than the newer ice being laid down above. The main contributor to this is that the new ice has a lot of gas dissolved into it, or caught in bubbles. What this means is you can melt a million cubic meters of old glacial ice to get a bit less than a million cubic meters of water. However, the same volume of water (a bit less than a million cubic meters) falls as about 3 million cubic meters of snow inland, which gets packed down to about 1.5 million cubic meters of new ice. So, yes, the _volume_ of ice over Greenland is increasing, but the quantity of water in that ice is decreasing.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I think the future is in Flash. But the 10% figure the Microsoft guy quoted was for HD players - so the Shuffle and the Nano don't count for the purposes of examining the 10% number.
10% of the market = 10% of the units sold in period (7 months from start of December to end of June). We're talking the hard-disk-based players here, BTW, as per the interview.
Apple doesn't have a market share of 100 million iPods. They've got an _installed base_ of 100 million iPods. During the first three months of '07, Apple sold 10,549,000 iPods - but the Shuffle and the Nano don't count (flash-based). Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that about half the iPods Apple sell are the HD models, and that they'll sell about the same again the April-June period. So you're looking at about 8-10 million HD iPods sold in the period described. Suddenly, a 10% market share for the Zune selling about 1 million in the same period isn't unrealistic.
I think we can assume that the Microsoft guy got the size of the market right - he may be exaggerating sales by including units still in the channels and not with customers, but the size of the market is right.
Still, I don't know who buys these things. But then, I don't think MS sells them in Australia yet, so that's hardly surprising for me.
Um, I've got one right here... not from AT&T, but still.
Is the US phone service that shite that you don't have video mobiles yet?
There are many Christian groups that _don't_ trust modern medicine, particularly fundamentalist groups. The Seventh-Day Adventists come to mind...
And it's not that taking the bible as a series of parables makes it worthless, it just that doing so strips it of the authority of being the Word of God. When you can pick and choose, or interpret as you see fit, it stops being, well, Holy Writ, and just becomes an historical and cultural document, no different to Aesop's Fables (except that they teach better moral lessons...)
Believing in evolution means you toss out large chunks of the bible, at least with the old testament. In particular, the acceptance of "Deep Time", required for evolution and geology, tosses away the idea that a diety created Earth only a few thousand years ago, put humans on it fully formed in a garden, then kicked them out into the wide word.
Accepting evolution and other modern scientific viewpoints increasingly forces you to treat the Bible as a set of parables, not the literal word of God. And if it's just a bunch of parables, where does it's definitive authority, and the authority of religion come from?
No, it's very easy to see why many deeply religious Christians have problems with evolution....
Please provide evidence of something on that site that is not factual.
Sounds bogus to me. There's lots of reasons you may be ordering less oil:
* kids have moved out from home, so you're only heating part of the house now.
* you've lost your job, so you're economising and putting up with being cold.
* you put in top-quality insulation, and now the house only needs about 1/3rd as much heating
* you decide to go on a long vacation over winter, so you're not home to use the heater (no oil)
* you've gone green and now heat your house from the methane produced in your compost heap.
* so on and so forth...
This is nothing like a fixed rate mortgage - with a fixed rate mortgage, you've obtained a quantity of money in advance, and need to pay it back. This is more like a "fixed rate credit card" - when the rate is really good, you use the card a lot, but when it's not effective, you don't (after paying it off).
Now, if they offer a deal like: "We will offer you (this good price) as long as you buy (this quantity or more)" (thus making the implicit explicit), that's fine. Volume pricing works well, and there's no subjectivity about "what my house should use". They can even build in penalty clauses if they want - the point is, it's all upfront and open.
Apple only puts DRM on content sold through the iTMS _if_ the content provider (and presumably copyright holder) asks for it. It's not automatic.
You can even buy non-DRMed material via the iTMS - there are some independent labels up there who don't want to use DRM. It's still AAC, but it's not DRMed.
As Jobs said - if the music industry is concerned about the DRM lock-in created by Apple, there's an easy fix: don't use DRM.
This may sound obvious, but I'd say you've got the "Boot on LAN" support enabled in your BIOS. This allows your computer to be started in response to network commands (great for corporate IT shops, for example, where they push updates out overnight). However, it obviously means that your network card stays active even when "off".
Ditto with Aus, 40 years ago when we decimalised the currency (and then again in the 80s when we introduced the polymerised banknotes)
I call BS on this. The North had a slave economy when they started their own abolition campaigns - the Northern states had put in phased emancipation as early as 1804, giving their economies time to adapt.
Rather than agree to phased emancipation, the South refused to consider it. Yes, the result of an immediate abolition and emancipation would have been an economic disaster for the South, but it was their own fault - the powers-that-be in the South had actively opposed phased emancipation programs for over 60 years by that point. The writing was on the wall for a long time - the British had declared slave trading a crime in 1807 for English ships, and an act of piracy in 1827. Imports of slaves into the South had been in a steep decline for over a decade by 1863.
The South seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy following the election of Lincoln - the first president to be overwhelmingly rejected in several states. Lincoln got in because the more populous Northern states had more electoral college votes. He represented a change in the power balance - until then, the Southern block had controlled the Union.
Lincoln viewed the secession as illegal, and that the Confederate states had no legal right to break away. That said, he tolerated the secession, but insisted that the Union still controlled federal property in the South, and refused to negotiate. The Confederacy were the ones who actually initiated hostile action, when they attacked Fort Sumter - one of the three Union-held forts in the South whose commanders had not defected to the Confederacy.
Interestingly, by seceding from the Union, the Confederacy made Lincoln stronger. He'd originally been slated as a President facing a hostile Senate and a lukewarm (at best) Congress. After the secession, the Southern delegates were no longer there to oppose Lincoln. That, and violent riots in Maryland that the State government refused to stop, gave Lincoln a lot of power.
The South could have put in programs of their own to result in a smooth emancipation process. However, the slavery issue was just the most visible symptom of their real worry - being turned into an economic backwater and losing political power in the Union.
Yes, it would be punishment. Deserved punishment for the fact they accepted the federal handouts in the first place.
Realistically, though, you'd need to get a significant number of states willing to do this to affect change. However, you won't even get one - the dynamics with the voters mitigates against it.
In a democracy, the voters get the government they deserve.
Nobody likes to pay tax. They like the services they get, but they don't like paying tax. So state politicians vote both to decrease taxes and increase spending programs. They fund this through federal taxes. People don't bitch about federal taxes as much, because the people the next state over pay the same. Federal politicians in turn promise to spend federal tax dollars in their electorate. Or, as Tom Clancy put it: "Vote for me, because I'll really stick it to those folks in North Dakota."
The result is the federal government gets power over the states, because the _voters_ in the states want it that way.
If you want to change it, then campaign to have _your_ state reduce the money they accept from the federal government. Vote _against_ federal politicians who send federal money into your electorates. Have it hit you in your wallet, and the wallets of your neighbours. Get other people around the country to do it. Anything else is just bitching.
The states have only themselves to blame for allowing the federal government to have so much control over them via the purse strings.
If they wanted more independence, they simply need to raise the money they need through their own taxes instead of waiting for grants from the federal coffers.
Having grown up with the metric system, it's simple:
Now, those comfort levels are _mine_ - I grew up in a tropical environment, so I have a preference for warmer temperatures than colder temperatures, and it shows. The 20-25 range is what most people define as comfortable; office air-conditioning is meant to be set to 24C, for example.
As for the upper-end of the scale not being used? It's used all the time - in things like cooking. Want to warm something below the boiling point? 80-90C works fine. Doing a roast of beef? 180C for 30 minutes/500g. See, it's easy.
A great point. Apple and Cisco probably already have an agreement-in-principle about the use of the trademark, but the paperwork wasn't finalized in time for the conference.
Given the way that US trademark law works, where you have to actively defend your trademark, Cisco _has_ to sue Apple to show that they are defending their trademark, otherwise anyone would be able to abuse it. However, just because they lodge a lawsuit doesn't mean that they've got an army of trained attack lawyers ready to take Apple down.
My bet is that it's purely a pro-forma move to defend the trademark, which will get dropped the instant the paperwork for the agreement is done.
Actually, I just forgot that you guys hold a lot of different elections on the one day... my bad.
I would argue that a "none-of-the-above" option is what you want, instead of allowing no selection. The article still makes it sound like there was no vote recorded at all.
Still, what I'm really arguing is that the fact that there was some testing done by the state is not sufficient grounds to conclude that the software didn't have bugs.
There's definitely something screwy going on. From the article, about 18000 votes were accepted that didn't actually vote for anything. Now, if I was designing an e-voting package, there's no way I'd mark a vote as accepted if it didn't vote for something, especially in a country like the US where voting is not mandatory. After all, if they've bothered to turn up at the voting booth, you can assume they actually intended to vote.
(The situation is a little different in my home country of Australia - mandatory voting means that we might get something out of having a "none-of-the-above" option)
I also wouldn't put much faith in the "two parallel tests" done by the state. Absolutely nothing tests code like the real world, and the fact that both tests revealed "100 percent accuracy" when errors were detected on all models of e-voting machines during the US Congressional elections just means that the tests weren't very good. I doubt very much that the tests involved as many as 18000 voters in the first place, not to mention underpaid and overworked electoral officials trying to help a horde of undereducated and over-opinionated voters, with only a couple of hours training conducted a couple of months before.
The court ruled that the "conjecture" of lost votes didn't warrant over-riding the trade secret status of the e-voting machine code. This is a mistake - an expert review could easily conducted under a NDA, thus protecting the trade secret status. Not to mention that the tools of democracy shouldn't have trade secret status in the first place... without examining the code, how does anyone know that there isn't a little switch saying "On Super Tuesday, switch into rig-the-election mode"? (Not that I think there is - it's just that there's no way to disprove it). Nor do you need to go the full open-source route for this - just like the expert review, a panel of experts could easily be responsible for certifying e-voting machines without any risk of the code being exposed.\
As an Australian, I should point out here that we're not in "1-in-1000 year" drought. Point in fact, there was a feature in the Australian today about this. The second-wettest year on record in Australia was 2000.
The problem isn't lack of rainfall. The problem is that rainfall patterns have shifted - it no longer rains as much as it used to in certain areas, and it now rains more than it used to. In particular, this is screwing up dams - most of the catchment areas for them are now getting less rainfall. This is stuffing up irrigation, which makes the farmers pissed off because they ignored the fact that we live in a sunburnt country and don't plant to suit the prevailing conditions.
In this land of droughts and flooding rains, we have farmers who plant crops and raise livestock requiring intensive irrigation. According to the CSIRO it takes about 750 litres of water to grow one kilogram of oven-dry wheat grain. It also takes up to 100,000 litres of water to produce just one kilogram of beef, and 170,000 litres of water to produce 1 kg of clean wool. Something like 75% of all water utilisation in Australia is by farmers - about 10% of water is used in cities groaning under Level 4 water restrictions, with the remaining 15% used by heavy industry. A lot of this water "goes overseas" in a way.
What Australia needs is a way of shifting water around more efficiently, to take it from the areas which have too much and direct it to the places it's needed. Initiatives like Beattie's "water grid" will help. Moving the users of water would help, too - most of Australia's agriculture is based around the Murray-Darling basin, which has been hit hard by the drought. Areas like northern Australia and Tasmania, by contrast, are under-developed agriculturally and have plenty of water.
Some, but not much... mostly, these will break off inland, so they won't drop. The slides themselves will be fairly gentle... more of a drift than a rush. You'd only get a tsunami if a large area was undercut and snapped off. Even so, this wouldn't be big enough to do much damage except maybe to Iceland.
A number of similar slabs have broken off from Antarctica, and there's been no tsunami as a result.
*sigh* Global warming is not quite that simple, and frankly you're either an idiot or a troll.
What global warming means is that there is more energy in the weather systems of the world. That energy gets expressed as more _extreme_ temperature. The snow storms in Denver at the moment are just as much a symptom of global warming as the heat waves in Europe were in summer.
The weather is a vast engine that pumps heat energy around the globe. Global warming will result in this engine becoming unstable. One aspect of that may well be a complete breakdown of the heat-transfer mechanisms in the North Atlantic - which, in turn, would see glaciers in New York before too long, while, at the same time, causing the icecaps in Greenland and Antarctica to melt.
Climatology is hard. So's being a sane person with a brain, and not a troll.
Depends how much the ice has moved. Glacial movements wear down mountains; Scandinavia doesn't have much in the way of mountains because glaciers have grown and shrunk back and forth over it a lot.
Glaciers have covered Greenland for a long time. Sheer pressure of weight won't wear down mountains at all.
Look at Antarctica - it's got several mountain ranges of decent size (3k+ - going up to 4897m at Mt Vinson - that's higher than any mountain in the Alps or the Rockies)
It wasn't pronounced, and it wasn't rapid - it was about 2 degrees average over a century. It just happened that was enough.
Yes. See my previous reply to your original post.
Sorry, but this was predicted by the models.
What happens is that warming causes ice near the edges to melt. This dumps cold freshwater into the water nearby, disrupting warmer ocean currents. It also increases humidity. Due to the disrupted ocean currents, the prevailing winds go inland, taking the humid air with it. This gets dumped as snow in the middle, causing the central ice dome to increase. A similar effect occurs in Antartica, where the central ice dome is about 4ks thick.
As shown in the link you provided, _below_ 1500m, the average change was a shrinking of 2cm (+- 0.9cm). Yes, the overall effect was to increase the thickness of the ice dome, but the dome is definitely getting more pronounced.
What the models predict next, however, is that as the slope of the dome gets more steeper, it gets unstable. You then get large stress fractures occurring, and huge slabs - say, about the size of New York State - break off and slide down to the ocean. Fun stuff.
Also, there's ice and there's ice. Old ice is very dense - it's been compressed over thousands or even millions of years, and contains more water by volume than the newer ice being laid down above. The main contributor to this is that the new ice has a lot of gas dissolved into it, or caught in bubbles. What this means is you can melt a million cubic meters of old glacial ice to get a bit less than a million cubic meters of water. However, the same volume of water (a bit less than a million cubic meters) falls as about 3 million cubic meters of snow inland, which gets packed down to about 1.5 million cubic meters of new ice. So, yes, the _volume_ of ice over Greenland is increasing, but the quantity of water in that ice is decreasing.
Here's an paper from the same March 2006 issue of Science that describes the process.