Probably because we don't live very long and can only survive under some very specific environmental conditions.
If human survival is insignificant, then the state of the GBR isn't worth worrying about.
I'm sure we could have survived in the Pleistocene. You have to be prepared to move around the planet a bit to find equitable habitats, something that the system of nation states interferes with. Perhaps we will have to do away with them to survive.
...that as a geological feature, the GBR is relatively new.
As it only developed over the last 8000 years or so (since the last ice age) it's entirely possible that - in geological spans - the GBR is an ephemeral thing, like foam on the crest of a wave to us. To our short timeframe it seems permanent but it really isn't.
I know, that's not part of the FUD-creed, so downvote me to oblivion.
You are totally correct. The GBR wasn't there in the Pleistocene, when CO2 levels were higher than today.
In fact when the GBR was getting started the Sahara desert wasn't a desert at all, it was lush grass and swamp land.
I forgot to add that I obviously know nothing whatsoever about how the EU actually works, and can only parrot what our Dear Leader Vladimir tells me.
In that case you are in the same position as Boris Johnson and David Davis, the UK politicians in charge of Brexit. Davis believed that a UK outside the EU/EEA could negotiate trade deals with individual EU member states and Boris just recently suggested that the UK could forge favorable trade deals with Turkey (which is in the EU customs region).
So lack of knowledge on how the EU actually works is no barrier to even the highest positions in UK government.
It's obvious Turkey should be awarded a full membership in the EU as they have proven themselves to be on the same level as the European Commission, the non-elected elitist Rulers of the union. See: European Constitution, and Dutch Ukraine Referendum.
Of course. And the death penalty and holocaust denial aren't that important really...
I agree that that will happen. Looking around it appears humans are not prone to "deal with it"
That is the real problem. Part of it is that people want things to stay as they are. Yet things cannot stay as they are. People tend to ignore inconvenient facts like that.
One of the things that characterises modern Chinese language is the proliferation of homophones (words that sound alike).
The way that Chinese people cope with this is extreme use of context and of spelling; the homophones don't have the same character. Sometimes Chinese people will clarify meaning by sketching a character in the air, often unconsciously.
If the error rate reduction is so huge based on speech recognition this would suggest that pinyin can replace characters for writing Chinese. And this has been disproved on many occasions; you can literally write an entire story using only the syllable 'ma'. In pinyin it all comes out as 'ma' with the 4 tones. In characters its actually readable. Same with the story of the lion eating poet in the stone den which is all 'shi'.
So a great test of this Baidu software would be to get someone to read this to it and see what it comes up with:
The thing is that as climate changes the precipitation belts shift as well. Thats possibly what happened to the Sahara. There was a much later and similar shift in the Cape Verde islands which is near the Sahara where, in living memory, the rain just stopped.
Being adaptable means shifting production (and population) around as the climate changes, something which is sadly thwarted by the modern concept of the nation. So if the precipitation that produces the grain harvests of the USA shift north to Canada, that shouldn't be a disaster, it should be something which we as a species can adapt to by moving around the face of the planet. Its only a disaster for the entrenched powers that like to divide and conquer us by creating artificial structures like USA and Canada.
Survival is going to mean discarding a lot of our short term and fairly new concepts.
We cannot count on maintaining the planet how it is now, not even with advanced future tech. What we should focus on is being adaptable, like most of the other life on this planet.
Putting all of your eggs into one basket is an unwise strategy. In addition to trying to become more adaptable as a species, why not also try to limit the damage?
And nobody claims that global warming is a threat to life on Earth. For the biosphere in general it's probably great. Hell, it's not even a threat to human life on the planet, we are an adaptable species and global warming won't be enough to drive us to extinction. The danger of global warming is to human civilisation as it exists right now - it will cause coastal metropolises to flood and will mess with agriculture in many places. Nobody (who has an actual clue anyway) is worried about the end of the world here but that doesn't mean the consequences cannot be truly catastrophic.
My emphasis. Things change, its one of the great constants.
Theres the old story of the emperor who wanted his wise men to come up with something which, if he's happy and looks at it will make him sad and if he's sad and looks at it will make him happy. The solution was a ring inscribed "This, too, shall pass."
There may be value in the idea that the planet doesn't have to be worse off for being warmer, in a stable long term situation, but if you change things quickly that's going to have dramatic consequences which you're completely disregarding. To take the simplest example, there's 80m of water stocked in ice. How fast it melts makes a very large difference. Or biotopes. If they change very slowly, species adapt. If they change too fast all you've got is extinction.
I'm not going to dig out the links but, if you are interested, look at the CO2 ppm in the pliocene and look at the age of the Great Barrier Reef, the sea level changes and (presumably) ocean acidity changes its dealt with.
But yes, if things shift to much warmer and then quickly back to cooler its very hard for the ecosystem to adapt. That may be another reason to, instead of trying to reverse whats going on, to roll with it!
This is simultaneously one of the most stupid and the most insidious arguments for burning more fossil fuels I've ever read. Sheesh, dude, who pays you ? Tar Sands of Alberta, Inc. ?
I'm not talking about burning more, I'm talking about adapting to whats going on and not sticking our heads in the sand.
The world changes, deal with it or die off. Thats the message we get clear and strong from the fossil record.
Exactly. There's only so much carbon plants can fix. The idea that photosynthesizing organisms just magically fix unlimited amounts of CO2 emissions is absurd, but it's the sort of mindless Heartland Institute-created meme that the pseudo-skeptics throw around, because it saves them from having to ever actually understand the science.
The thing is, it seems pretty clear that Planet Earth used to support much more lush plant and animal life than it does today.
If you look at the evidence of growth rate of hadrosaurs, for example, they grew extremely fast and went on very long migrations after a season of growth after hatching. They put on huge amounts of bulk very fast, way faster than anything alive today. They were herbivores. There must have been a LOT of very fast growing vegetation to support these huge herds of fast growing herbivores. Its like the Serengeti but bigger and faster; wildebeest are similar but smaller and go on a shorter migration. And they are fueled and bulked out by very special conditions involving very special volcanic fertilization of the grass they feed on.
When you look at plants, the bulk of what you are looking at is carbon that was sucked out of the atmosphere and is inflated with water. The only way to get very fast growth of huge amounts of plants is with lots of CO2 and fresh water.
I get the feeling that the Earth that the human race has 'grown up with', the Earth that we think is 'normal' is carbon-starved relative to its state in the past. 'Normal' is just a relative term. The 'normal' of the world the hadrosaurs inhabited was very different from this. Our 'normal' isn't the only one. The world of the hadrosaurs changed and could no longer support them. Our world will change and maybe won't be able to support us, this is inevitable whether its because of something we do or because of natural changes; the Earth changes and changes drastically. But it'll almost certainly support life. Live on Earth has survived almost being frozen into a snowball, almost being paved with volcanic eruptions and being hit with asteroids a couple of times.
Look at the big picture. We tend to look at just the last 5000 years and think thats what Earth is SUPPOSED to be like. Before that, for example, the Sahara Desert was lush and green; there is a remnant population of crocodiles in the middle of that desert.
We cannot count on maintaining the planet how it is now, not even with advanced future tech. What we should focus on is being adaptable, like most of the other life on this planet.
This meme did not come from a Heartland Institute.
The majority of organizations that suffered a DDoS attack (53 percent) also experienced some form of additional compromise. Forty-six percent of breached organizations discovered a virus, malware was activated at 37 percent of breached organizations, and ransomware was encountered at 15 percent of breached organizations.
A DDos isn't a breach, and I'm not clear how a DDos would result in additional vulnerabilities unless the victimized organization did something unusual in their attempt to respond to it.
I could see an attacker using a DDos as a smokescreen to distract the IT dept while they're running their real attack... but more likely I wonder if admins are simply doing an audit because of the DDos and discovering unrelated attacks at a result.
Yes, its a distraction and smoke screen.
Also, systems under stress tend to become vulnerable to secondary infections, which is why sometimes it is right to take antibiotics when you have flu.
Slashdot Mirror
And what was the temperature? Coral doesn't care about co2.
I think the co2 levels may be relevant to acidity which coral does care about.
Humans take such a short term view of things.
Probably because we don't live very long and can only survive under some very specific environmental conditions.
If human survival is insignificant, then the state of the GBR isn't worth worrying about.
I'm sure we could have survived in the Pleistocene. You have to be prepared to move around the planet a bit to find equitable habitats, something that the system of nation states interferes with. Perhaps we will have to do away with them to survive.
...that as a geological feature, the GBR is relatively new.
As it only developed over the last 8000 years or so (since the last ice age) it's entirely possible that - in geological spans - the GBR is an ephemeral thing, like foam on the crest of a wave to us. To our short timeframe it seems permanent but it really isn't.
I know, that's not part of the FUD-creed, so downvote me to oblivion.
You are totally correct. The GBR wasn't there in the Pleistocene, when CO2 levels were higher than today.
In fact when the GBR was getting started the Sahara desert wasn't a desert at all, it was lush grass and swamp land.
Humans take such a short term view of things.
Because the US mail has never been tampered with. http://ktla.com/2016/08/27/33-...
And when people vote by mail there's absolutely no chance that their vote might have been coerced.
Avoiding spoilers + being able to talk about the movie with friends while it's still relevant are pretty big draws.
I don't much care about 'spoilers' and movies being relevant in conversations with friends? ...?
"make it illegal to even propose any stupid laws"
You want to make it illegal to propose laws?
Anything not illegal should be compulsory.
The strong don't have to control the facts. Controlling them creates weakness.
Yeah, you should say that more like Yoda...
I forgot to add that I obviously know nothing whatsoever about how the EU actually works, and can only parrot what our Dear Leader Vladimir tells me.
In that case you are in the same position as Boris Johnson and David Davis, the UK politicians in charge of Brexit. Davis believed that a UK outside the EU/EEA could negotiate trade deals with individual EU member states and Boris just recently suggested that the UK could forge favorable trade deals with Turkey (which is in the EU customs region).
So lack of knowledge on how the EU actually works is no barrier to even the highest positions in UK government.
It's obvious Turkey should be awarded a full membership in the EU as they have proven themselves to be on the same level as the European Commission, the non-elected elitist Rulers of the union. See: European Constitution, and Dutch Ukraine Referendum.
Of course. And the death penalty and holocaust denial aren't that important really...
Only weak governments and nations need to use trolls. The strong can let the facts speak for themselves.
Strength is having control over the facts.
The world changes, deal with it or die off.
I agree that that will happen. Looking around it appears humans are not prone to "deal with it"
That is the real problem. Part of it is that people want things to stay as they are. Yet things cannot stay as they are. People tend to ignore inconvenient facts like that.
"Survival is going to mean discarding a lot of our short term and fairly new concepts."
everything you've ever known is included in this statement.
Climate does change...over very very long periods of time. right now it's changing over very very short periods do directly to our actions.
I'm pretty sure climate can change faster than you are giving it credit for. Its not geological time. A few hundred or thousand years.
One of the things that characterises modern Chinese language is the proliferation of homophones (words that sound alike).
The way that Chinese people cope with this is extreme use of context and of spelling; the homophones don't have the same character. Sometimes Chinese people will clarify meaning by sketching a character in the air, often unconsciously.
If the error rate reduction is so huge based on speech recognition this would suggest that pinyin can replace characters for writing Chinese. And this has been disproved on many occasions; you can literally write an entire story using only the syllable 'ma'. In pinyin it all comes out as 'ma' with the 4 tones. In characters its actually readable. Same with the story of the lion eating poet in the stone den which is all 'shi'.
So a great test of this Baidu software would be to get someone to read this to it and see what it comes up with:
https://chinesepod.com/blog/ho...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and see if it gets it right:
Sh Shì shí sh sh
Shíshì shshì Sh Shì, shì sh, shì shí shí sh.
Shì shíshí shì shì shì sh.
Shí shí, shì shí sh shì shì.
Shì shí, shì Sh Shì shì shì.
Shì shì shì shí sh, shì sh shì, sh shì shí sh shìshì.
Shì shí shì shí sh sh, shì shíshì.
Shíshì sh, Shì sh shì shì shíshì.
Shíshì shì, Shì sh shì shí shì shí sh.
Shí shí, sh shí shì shí sh sh, shí shí shí sh sh.
Shì shì shì shì.
The thing is that as climate changes the precipitation belts shift as well. Thats possibly what happened to the Sahara. There was a much later and similar shift in the Cape Verde islands which is near the Sahara where, in living memory, the rain just stopped.
Being adaptable means shifting production (and population) around as the climate changes, something which is sadly thwarted by the modern concept of the nation. So if the precipitation that produces the grain harvests of the USA shift north to Canada, that shouldn't be a disaster, it should be something which we as a species can adapt to by moving around the face of the planet. Its only a disaster for the entrenched powers that like to divide and conquer us by creating artificial structures like USA and Canada.
Survival is going to mean discarding a lot of our short term and fairly new concepts.
Putting all of your eggs into one basket is an unwise strategy. In addition to trying to become more adaptable as a species, why not also try to limit the damage?
You mean like by colonizing mars and the moon?
The problem is that Sapiens won't be able to adapt to the climate changes in store. Cockroaches, maybe.
We could try to be like cockroaches.
I'd be very surprised if we couldn't adapt if we tried to adapt instead of trying to hide from the reality that the world changes.
And nobody claims that global warming is a threat to life on Earth. For the biosphere in general it's probably great. Hell, it's not even a threat to human life on the planet, we are an adaptable species and global warming won't be enough to drive us to extinction. The danger of global warming is to human civilisation as it exists right now - it will cause coastal metropolises to flood and will mess with agriculture in many places. Nobody (who has an actual clue anyway) is worried about the end of the world here but that doesn't mean the consequences cannot be truly catastrophic.
My emphasis. Things change, its one of the great constants.
Theres the old story of the emperor who wanted his wise men to come up with something which, if he's happy and looks at it will make him sad and if he's sad and looks at it will make him happy. The solution was a ring inscribed "This, too, shall pass."
There may be value in the idea that the planet doesn't have to be worse off for being warmer, in a stable long term situation, but if you change things quickly that's going to have dramatic consequences which you're completely disregarding.
To take the simplest example, there's 80m of water stocked in ice. How fast it melts makes a very large difference. Or biotopes. If they change very slowly, species adapt. If they change too fast all you've got is extinction.
I'm not going to dig out the links but, if you are interested, look at the CO2 ppm in the pliocene and look at the age of the Great Barrier Reef, the sea level changes and (presumably) ocean acidity changes its dealt with.
But yes, if things shift to much warmer and then quickly back to cooler its very hard for the ecosystem to adapt. That may be another reason to, instead of trying to reverse whats going on, to roll with it!
This is simultaneously one of the most stupid and the most insidious arguments for burning more fossil fuels I've ever read. Sheesh, dude, who pays you ? Tar Sands of Alberta, Inc. ?
I'm not talking about burning more, I'm talking about adapting to whats going on and not sticking our heads in the sand.
The world changes, deal with it or die off. Thats the message we get clear and strong from the fossil record.
Exactly. There's only so much carbon plants can fix. The idea that photosynthesizing organisms just magically fix unlimited amounts of CO2 emissions is absurd, but it's the sort of mindless Heartland Institute-created meme that the pseudo-skeptics throw around, because it saves them from having to ever actually understand the science.
The thing is, it seems pretty clear that Planet Earth used to support much more lush plant and animal life than it does today.
If you look at the evidence of growth rate of hadrosaurs, for example, they grew extremely fast and went on very long migrations after a season of growth after hatching. They put on huge amounts of bulk very fast, way faster than anything alive today. They were herbivores. There must have been a LOT of very fast growing vegetation to support these huge herds of fast growing herbivores. Its like the Serengeti but bigger and faster; wildebeest are similar but smaller and go on a shorter migration. And they are fueled and bulked out by very special conditions involving very special volcanic fertilization of the grass they feed on.
When you look at plants, the bulk of what you are looking at is carbon that was sucked out of the atmosphere and is inflated with water. The only way to get very fast growth of huge amounts of plants is with lots of CO2 and fresh water.
I get the feeling that the Earth that the human race has 'grown up with', the Earth that we think is 'normal' is carbon-starved relative to its state in the past. 'Normal' is just a relative term. The 'normal' of the world the hadrosaurs inhabited was very different from this. Our 'normal' isn't the only one. The world of the hadrosaurs changed and could no longer support them. Our world will change and maybe won't be able to support us, this is inevitable whether its because of something we do or because of natural changes; the Earth changes and changes drastically. But it'll almost certainly support life. Live on Earth has survived almost being frozen into a snowball, almost being paved with volcanic eruptions and being hit with asteroids a couple of times.
Look at the big picture. We tend to look at just the last 5000 years and think thats what Earth is SUPPOSED to be like. Before that, for example, the Sahara Desert was lush and green; there is a remnant population of crocodiles in the middle of that desert.
We cannot count on maintaining the planet how it is now, not even with advanced future tech. What we should focus on is being adaptable, like most of the other life on this planet.
This meme did not come from a Heartland Institute.
Another aspect of Murphy's Law: when you run to the bathroom to unload the coke you drank, that's when the movie gets interesting.
Thats why the remote control has a pause button! OH WAIT!
Well if you really want to see a movie on its release date there are not many legal options.
I don't care if I watch a movie on it's release date or a year later. The content is still the same.
Star Wars. The content changed, sadly. Took a few years though.
But in general, yeah I don't get why theres any particular incentive to see a movie on its release date.
The majority of organizations that suffered a DDoS attack (53 percent) also experienced some form of additional compromise. Forty-six percent of breached organizations discovered a virus, malware was activated at 37 percent of breached organizations, and ransomware was encountered at 15 percent of breached organizations.
A DDos isn't a breach, and I'm not clear how a DDos would result in additional vulnerabilities unless the victimized organization did something unusual in their attempt to respond to it.
I could see an attacker using a DDos as a smokescreen to distract the IT dept while they're running their real attack... but more likely I wonder if admins are simply doing an audit because of the DDos and discovering unrelated attacks at a result.
Yes, its a distraction and smoke screen.
Also, systems under stress tend to become vulnerable to secondary infections, which is why sometimes it is right to take antibiotics when you have flu.
No you can't. That's why some users forked Debian and created Devuan (https://devuan.org/).
You can't what?
http://without-systemd.org/wik...
https://debiantalk.wordpress.c...
Question is, will this "ease" remain in future versions...
I think thats the number one worry with every distribution.