Nope, you didn't read carefully. I wrote about "equivalent of newtonian 'c'" - amount of energy which, given newtonian physics, would accelerate the object to speed of light. Because of relativistic physics, said amount of energy allows reaching something between 0.6 and 0.8c. Of course further acceleration doesn't increase the speed all that much from our standpoint, but from the point of the crew, the perceived acceleration would seem pretty much linear. So you spend '1 newtonian c worth' of energy but not to accelerate from 0 to 0.8c, but from 0.90c to 0.95c. The actual speedup is 0.05c, but the remaining energy goes into time dillatation, meaning the crew perceives this as a full +1c acceleration (or more exactly, the universe around them gets so much 'shorter', targets closer)
A beautiful thing about relativistic physics is that you can't exceed speed of light only from outside observers point of view. From the inside (and putting some legaleese like 'distances are constant, it's our perception of space that changes' aside) your travel time behaves in entirely newtonian way in respect to energy expenditure.
Meaning nuclear power equivalent to ten russian bombs would suffice to reach 0.1c Meaning about 100 to reach what would be c if not for Einstein (but which is still between 0.6 and 0.8c and sounds like much nicer speed than 0.1c)
Releasing the energy gradually, accelerating at comfortable 1g you can reach newtonian equivalent of 1c in about a year. You can continue accelerating to make the trip less boring for the travelers due to time dillatation (for us, their speed won't change, for them - travel time will get much shorter) or drop into cruise speed for another 30 years. Then decelerate at 1g for a year again (or start deceleration halfway, keep the value of 1g all the time and you have the problem of artificial gravity solved). and you're 20 light years away from Earth in less than 30 years.
Sure nuclear power is just plain energy and you'd need more than a bunch of russian nukes, but the point is the energy is available and the time is not nearly as ridiculous as it would seem (and time dillatation can easily replace hibernation as a method of time compression for the travelers).
Yes, as long as he opposes The Spanish Inquisition too. And allows me to rent a nice air-conditioned room with all the basic necessities for an affordable price in hell.
Why are you bidding less than you are willing to pay, in the proxy bidding auction?
People who keep bidding by 1 penny until they outbid me piss me off.
Oh well, I simply learned to use these systems. They are mostly free to use and work like a charm protecting against stupid people who have no clue what proxy bidding is, against kids who bid just to piss you off and never buy, and against crooked sellers who use fake account on rare wares. Plus doesn't advertize given seller.
Case 1: the item is worth to you $100, but is available for $10. You bid $100, which shows as $11. Some idiot comes along, bids $12. Your bid rises to $13, "oh, bastard outbid me, I'll show him", bids $14. Still less than $100, so he outbids your $15... pissed to no end with "you bastard outbidding him" he ends up spending $110 on an item he didn't want to pay more than $15 in the first place, but "I showed him" ego boost. Solution: bid $100 1s before end. You outbid his $12 with $13.
Case 2: a kid tries to "test" how much you bid on your item, bids in increments of $5 with no intention of ever paying. Stops after outbidding you. Either you raise your bet to $110 or lose. Alternatively the kid leaves bored at $80, no other competition shows up, you pay $80 instead of $10. Solution: no bid - no "testing"
Case 3: crooked seller sells car parts. Given part is really obscure and he's the only one with it on whole ebay. The display price is very low too. You bid $10. "Oh, a customer willing to buy that part, let's see if they are desperate enough to pay $50" - and he bids $30 on that very part, which lay without bids on ebay for last two years. But you need it and so you bid $50 to outbid him. Solution: bid when he has no time to react.
Case 4: the category is full of items differing very little, at very similar prices. There are 2-3 bids total in 200 or so offers. You spend a hour seeking out an offer which is by a small margin better than others. You bid the price which is right, about what the seller asks. Some kid comes along, sees offers 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0... so they check the offer with one bid. "Likely the best". They outbid you, offering price that is no longer right, and requiring you to find another offer which is not as good. Solution: don't advertize the item by placing a bet, buy it in last seconds, when your only competition is people who spend equally much time researching the offers.
UPDATE 5: I've been asked what our disclosure policy is. Its pretty simple, in most cases we will give vendors as long as they need to fix problems. If the vendor is unresponsive or make threats, we will give them 30 days then release details. If a vendor answers a vulnerability disclosure with marketing and spin attempts, we no longer report vulnerabilities to that vendor but the information goes into our Hacker Eye View program for customers and will be used in pentesting. We do not sell the vulnerabilities to any 3rd party.
Seems the very likely scenario that they reported a critical vulnerablity and Apple tried to troubleshoot them "Is the network cable plugged in?" or "Our software is absolutely secure, your don't need to worry about it, our software has been throughoutly tested." or such. A security expert who gets flushed down the toilet by a marketoid is quite likely to hold a grudge against given company and report the following bugs elsewhere than said company.
Its Windows counterpart is a mere shadow of its former self.
Former = from when? I remember some old QT. 3.something I think. It hijacked program association for.jpg files every time you ran it, and then failed to display the jpegs. And a dozen of movie formats it claimed to support and hijacked their associations too.
Quicktime is a huge, ugly useless thing that steps in its muddy boots in the middle of my home (my PC) and starts rearranging things, dropping half of them on the floor in the process. I want a player, not a friggin juggernaut trying to turn my PC into a media center.
Yes. Because the network was not overengineered and supported the expected traffic, not maximum possible traffic. And then the ad came. I work at one of bigger portals, and when the Business Unit is to comission a TV/frontpage/other media advertisement of certain service, they are required to give a 2-week notice to the IT, and the IT is free to veto the ad in case the infrastructure is not ready for the extra traffic. If an ad gets aired without IT's knowledge, and as result a service goes down, the BU is held responsible, not the IT.
One of interesting effects of the Big Portals world I noticed when I got this job first is that when it comes to traffic, you're juggling hot potatos. Your homemade PHPBB-based portal for fans of an anime series usually runs at 0.5% of CPU, eats up maybe 5% of your home ADSL and serves 20 requests a minute. Here, a farm of some 200 servers is running at 90% its capacity most of the time, chokes slightly during rush hours and goes down burning if the BU makes some stupid decision about ads of the portal. We're not worried about DDoS much - usually a few DDoSes run against us but they account for a fraction of percent of the legal traffic. If we open a new service, we add servers to contain the expected traffic. If a service is promoted, some horsepower gets shifted from other, less used parts - sure there are load ballancing mechanisms, but they don't know there will be extra 500 clicks per second once the commercial gets aired at 18:30, so things get tweaked by hand. And we're not too big about buying commercials which provide temporary rush - all you get is servers down now, and 2% less userbase annoyed by the downtime once the rush is over. If it increases the userbase slowly, accounting for reasonable purchase of more servers and more bandwidth, all right. The small margin is big enough to account for all the normal flux in load. Rapid spikes are dangerous, but rapid spikes don't happen by themselves - they are planned months ahead.
a) temperature rise - temperature stays the same (obviously your ice age in europe claim would be on the temperature doesn't rise side) b) rainfall will increase, along with storms etc - rainfall will decrease and violent weather will occur LESS frequent
Since the concept of "average" seems to be strange to you, let me explain like to a baby:
To survive a year you'll need aboutt some 360 liters of water, drinking about 1l/day (low but survivable). Drink 30 liters of water at once - you die, or at least puke. Which is more, 30 liters or 300 liters? Will you survive a year given that you get to save most of the 30l given to you at the beginning of the year and then nothing more (and assuming you avoid drowning in it), or is your chance better if you receive 1l daily?
Assuming Earth as a "black sphere" seems to be this nice simplification of a model opponents of global warming make - that emission is directly related to absorption and that the atmosphere is nicely linear. In other words, there's no greenhouse effect. Instead, assume Earth is a spherical thermos with anizotropic isolation layer (100% reflectivity inside, 0% outside). With any, even weak energy source outside, the temperature rise is linear, to infinity. The reflectivity isn't infinite or zero, but glasshouses (with plants) exist, and don't behave like black spheres - the temperature rise in them is more than 5 degrees.
Care to elaborate as to why my statement is incorrect?
There's already an extensive system of anti-missile defenses in Alaska. The system to be placed in Poland is not a prototype or such, but a plain copy of what is already in widespread use in the US. I'm surprised to find out I know more about the US defense systems than you do.
With that said, I doubt that average student in the world learns about ALL, let alone more than 5 states (Washington D.C., NY, CA, Texas, and maybe Florida) which are equal in size to your countries.
I doubt anyone in Poland asked about Kentucky or Minnesota would seek them in southern Asia or Africa. That's exactly what you get in the US when asking about Finland or Romania. And it's not just a geography knowledge - kids coming back from schools in the US to Poland must enter a class a year or two below their age, because that's how far behind the US education leaves them.
Considering that I have been to places well beyond 1000KM probably means that I have traveled further than you have. I was on trips of 1000Km and more, not by plane too - trains, cars, ferry. In the course I crossed borders of 4 other countries, two of them on foot - but it doesn't really matter. Want a bragging contest? Here we go. In Europe, 100 miles is a long way to go. In the US, 100 years is a long time ago. I live in a city which currently cellebrates its 750th anniversary of its city rights, and has quite a few places left from that times, not to mention all the history inbetween: a royal castle of about 500 years of royal rule over the country, a network of forts leftover from Swedish occupation, a restaurant left unchanged from the times of cultural revolution, and another one where kings have dined 500 years ago. The shortcut to a tram leads through a place where Kosciuszko (do you know the name? Should ring a bell!) was sworn in, the shortest route to my medical centre leads through remains of a german concentration camp, just by a hill artificially created over 1000 years ago in pre-christian times for relligious purposes, overlooking the former jewish ghetto district, not changed all that much since the times when it was the ghetto. I visit a friend in a district built in times of Stalin, as a showcase of the socialist thought, then we go drink a beer under the same trees where some of the best polish poets would seek inspiration 150, 200 years ago. I plan on starting riding horses at a small palace about half a kilometer away from where I live. It was built in 1535, being a residence of noble families. It was military barracks during the IWW, gestapo headqyarters during IIWW, now it's a riding center. And it's quite near of a football (soccer) stadium of the oldest polish soccer club, a hundred years old last year. A bit further there are some buildings of oldest and most prestigeous polish university, which was funded some 550 years ago.
So... what interesting historical pieces are there in your location?
"In short, if somewhere the amount of water lowers, it will increase somewhere else."
Yes. Decreases in the soil, increases in the stratosphere. High air temperature will prevent the steam from concentrating into rain, and increased air humidity will further contribute to the glasshouse effect. Barren soil will evaporate water even faster. Oceans, cooler than land, will act as concentration centres meaning rain will fall over oceans, while land loses even more water. Live plants tie moisture in the ground, drying up they leave the soil without the protective cover, meaning any rain after a prolonged drought will evaporate immediately.
Sure it will lead to violent storms. Hurricanes, thunderstorms, short disastrous rainfalls destroying the vegetation and not leaving enough water for long enough to sustain vegetation, separated by months of drought killing whatever rapid water flow didn't. That is, near the coast. The centres of large continents won't see any rain.
EU increase of emissions in 2000-now is artificially inflated by sheer increase of EU territory. Suddenly all the emissions of Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary and some more began counting towards total EU emissions.
"The entity known as Darwin is going to take care of everything. If there is global warming, pollution, toxic environment, rampant cancer then Humans will have children that can handle it."...or alternatively humans will become extinct and a different species will take over.
Yep, likely the actual amount of emission per square kilometer was reduced. Not even because of countering actions but because of lower degree of industrialization of the new countries (their original emission/km was lower than in EU).
I thought about debunking your arguments, but the more I read the more I see you're a troll. Proof? 5) more co2 in the athmosphere will be automatically countered by more heat. That's how it works. Some new science we got here.
The bugs are not in the rendering engine, they are in the user interface design and protection mechanisms. These are exploits against currently protected features, except the protection is being circumvented. (when installing an extension, you see a timer counting down before you can click "OK". So if we focus that window on keypress of Enter, the keyup event and the actual keypress will go to the OK button, not to the TEXTAREA you were using before.
Firefox is running on its own cross-platform framework and the bug exists in the upper-level layers - javascript, frame display etc. The exploits aren't really bugs per se, they are more of a clever hacks that use existing mechanisms to permit actions they were not meant to. Say, Firefox prevents input into a dialog/field from within javascript, just from the keyboard, but it allows to manipulate the focus, so when you press enter in one element, your keypress gets executed in a different one, say you put a newline in a forum and the keypress confirms installation of an "extension" from an evil site, instead of putting a newline in your post.
Norway, Sweden, Finland, east of Germany. Maybe Denmark. If the location was Romania or Greece, all , or almost all of Europe would be protected. Except not from Russia.
Launches of suborbital missiles that fly over Africa, Antarctica, Pacific Ocean, North Pole, and in the end fall on Europe flying over Poland. Or the ones that make a big circle through Russia or Atlantic Ocean and come back to Europe from North.
Check location of Europe on the map. Check location of Iran. Then check location of Poland. Then try to draw possible trajectories of missiles launched from Iran, flying to most of Europe, that could be intercepted by missiles from Poland.
"It actually will protect Europe from Russian, _Chinese_, _NK_, and _Iranian_ launches."
Typical geography knowledge of an American. Yeah, it might protect Finland from Iranian launches. Or maybe some of Sweden and northwest of Norway. Poland is way too far north to protect centre of Europe from the Middle East. I'd understand Romania or Grecce, but Poland is strictly against Russia, and Russia's reaction is quite natural. Oh, and same bullshit goes to the US. So North Korea launches the missiles 3/4 the way around the globe to include Poland on the route to the US? Iran makes a 2000km detour north before the missiles are turned west? China... China, with some luck could launch over Russia, Poland, Greenland, wrap around northern Canada and hit Alaska in a straight line like that.
Oh, but we all know Bush isn't too good at geography...
Yep, except the targetting itself is a process of picking a pre-selected set of coordinates from a list of known, prioritized targets. The list of targets is a matter of careful planning, and their coordinates are a result of espionage and precise target recognition. It's not like "They fired their rockets. I want coordinates of all their military bases as soon as the satellite can locate them"
Likely until now the targets in Poland included some strategical bridges, some cities, sea ports, airports, and were quite low on the list, "just in case something goes on very very wrong". Now the first rockets to be fired will fall on the territory of Poland, on the location of the shield base if the exact location is known, on all the suspected locations of the base, if no exact position has been found.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, you didn't read carefully.
I wrote about "equivalent of newtonian 'c'" - amount of energy which, given newtonian physics, would accelerate the object to speed of light. Because of relativistic physics, said amount of energy allows reaching something between 0.6 and 0.8c. Of course further acceleration doesn't increase the speed all that much from our standpoint, but from the point of the crew, the perceived acceleration would seem pretty much linear. So you spend '1 newtonian c worth' of energy but not to accelerate from 0 to 0.8c, but from 0.90c to 0.95c. The actual speedup is 0.05c, but the remaining energy goes into time dillatation, meaning the crew perceives this as a full +1c acceleration (or more exactly, the universe around them gets so much 'shorter', targets closer)
A beautiful thing about relativistic physics is that you can't exceed speed of light only from outside observers point of view. From the inside (and putting some legaleese like 'distances are constant, it's our perception of space that changes' aside) your travel time behaves in entirely newtonian way in respect to energy expenditure.
Still, I need to see a horse in space yet.
The calculations: 2*10^18 J
Tzar Bomba - 50MT = 2*10^17 J
Meaning nuclear power equivalent to ten russian bombs would suffice to reach 0.1c
Meaning about 100 to reach what would be c if not for Einstein (but which is still between 0.6 and 0.8c and sounds like much nicer speed than 0.1c)
Releasing the energy gradually, accelerating at comfortable 1g you can reach newtonian equivalent of 1c in about a year. You can continue accelerating to make the trip less boring for the travelers due to time dillatation (for us, their speed won't change, for them - travel time will get much shorter) or drop into cruise speed for another 30 years. Then decelerate at 1g for a year again (or start deceleration halfway, keep the value of 1g all the time and you have the problem of artificial gravity solved). and you're 20 light years away from Earth in less than 30 years.
Sure nuclear power is just plain energy and you'd need more than a bunch of russian nukes, but the point is the energy is available and the time is not nearly as ridiculous as it would seem (and time dillatation can easily replace hibernation as a method of time compression for the travelers).
Yes, as long as he opposes The Spanish Inquisition too. And allows me to rent a nice air-conditioned room with all the basic necessities for an affordable price in hell.
No, they'll sue you into buying one.
Why are you bidding less than you are willing to pay, in the proxy bidding auction?
People who keep bidding by 1 penny until they outbid me piss me off.
Oh well, I simply learned to use these systems. They are mostly free to use and work like a charm protecting against stupid people who have no clue what proxy bidding is, against kids who bid just to piss you off and never buy, and against crooked sellers who use fake account on rare wares. Plus doesn't advertize given seller.
Case 1: the item is worth to you $100, but is available for $10. You bid $100, which shows as $11. Some idiot comes along, bids $12. Your bid rises to $13, "oh, bastard outbid me, I'll show him", bids $14. Still less than $100, so he outbids your $15... pissed to no end with "you bastard outbidding him" he ends up spending $110 on an item he didn't want to pay more than $15 in the first place, but "I showed him" ego boost.
Solution: bid $100 1s before end. You outbid his $12 with $13.
Case 2: a kid tries to "test" how much you bid on your item, bids in increments of $5 with no intention of ever paying. Stops after outbidding you. Either you raise your bet to $110 or lose. Alternatively the kid leaves bored at $80, no other competition shows up, you pay $80 instead of $10.
Solution: no bid - no "testing"
Case 3: crooked seller sells car parts. Given part is really obscure and he's the only one with it on whole ebay. The display price is very low too. You bid $10. "Oh, a customer willing to buy that part, let's see if they are desperate enough to pay $50" - and he bids $30 on that very part, which lay without bids on ebay for last two years. But you need it and so you bid $50 to outbid him.
Solution: bid when he has no time to react.
Case 4: the category is full of items differing very little, at very similar prices. There are 2-3 bids total in 200 or so offers. You spend a hour seeking out an offer which is by a small margin better than others. You bid the price which is right, about what the seller asks. Some kid comes along, sees offers 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0... so they check the offer with one bid. "Likely the best". They outbid you, offering price that is no longer right, and requiring you to find another offer which is not as good.
Solution: don't advertize the item by placing a bet, buy it in last seconds, when your only competition is people who spend equally much time researching the offers.
Citing the blog:
UPDATE 5: I've been asked what our disclosure policy is. Its pretty simple, in most cases we will give vendors as long as they need to fix problems. If the vendor is unresponsive or make threats, we will give them 30 days then release details. If a vendor answers a vulnerability disclosure with marketing and spin attempts, we no longer report vulnerabilities to that vendor but the information goes into our Hacker Eye View program for customers and will be used in pentesting. We do not sell the vulnerabilities to any 3rd party.
Seems the very likely scenario that they reported a critical vulnerablity and Apple tried to troubleshoot them "Is the network cable plugged in?" or "Our software is absolutely secure, your don't need to worry about it, our software has been throughoutly tested." or such. A security expert who gets flushed down the toilet by a marketoid is quite likely to hold a grudge against given company and report the following bugs elsewhere than said company.
Its Windows counterpart is a mere shadow of its former self.
.jpg files every time you ran it, and then failed to display the jpegs. And a dozen of movie formats it claimed to support and hijacked their associations too.
Former = from when?
I remember some old QT. 3.something I think. It hijacked program association for
Quicktime is a huge, ugly useless thing that steps in its muddy boots in the middle of my home (my PC) and starts rearranging things, dropping half of them on the floor in the process. I want a player, not a friggin juggernaut trying to turn my PC into a media center.
Yes. Because the network was not overengineered and supported the expected traffic, not maximum possible traffic. And then the ad came. I work at one of bigger portals, and when the Business Unit is to comission a TV/frontpage/other media advertisement of certain service, they are required to give a 2-week notice to the IT, and the IT is free to veto the ad in case the infrastructure is not ready for the extra traffic. If an ad gets aired without IT's knowledge, and as result a service goes down, the BU is held responsible, not the IT.
One of interesting effects of the Big Portals world I noticed when I got this job first is that when it comes to traffic, you're juggling hot potatos. Your homemade PHPBB-based portal for fans of an anime series usually runs at 0.5% of CPU, eats up maybe 5% of your home ADSL and serves 20 requests a minute. Here, a farm of some 200 servers is running at 90% its capacity most of the time, chokes slightly during rush hours and goes down burning if the BU makes some stupid decision about ads of the portal. We're not worried about DDoS much - usually a few DDoSes run against us but they account for a fraction of percent of the legal traffic. If we open a new service, we add servers to contain the expected traffic. If a service is promoted, some horsepower gets shifted from other, less used parts - sure there are load ballancing mechanisms, but they don't know there will be extra 500 clicks per second once the commercial gets aired at 18:30, so things get tweaked by hand. And we're not too big about buying commercials which provide temporary rush - all you get is servers down now, and 2% less userbase annoyed by the downtime once the rush is over. If it increases the userbase slowly, accounting for reasonable purchase of more servers and more bandwidth, all right. The small margin is big enough to account for all the normal flux in load. Rapid spikes are dangerous, but rapid spikes don't happen by themselves - they are planned months ahead.
a) temperature rise - temperature stays the same (obviously your ice age in europe claim would be on the temperature doesn't rise side)
b) rainfall will increase, along with storms etc - rainfall will decrease and violent weather will occur LESS frequent
Since the concept of "average" seems to be strange to you, let me explain like to a baby:
To survive a year you'll need aboutt some 360 liters of water, drinking about 1l/day (low but survivable).
Drink 30 liters of water at once - you die, or at least puke.
Which is more, 30 liters or 300 liters? Will you survive a year given that you get to save most of the 30l given to you at the beginning of the year and then nothing more (and assuming you avoid drowning in it), or is your chance better if you receive 1l daily?
Assuming Earth as a "black sphere" seems to be this nice simplification of a model opponents of global warming make - that emission is directly related to absorption and that the atmosphere is nicely linear. In other words, there's no greenhouse effect. Instead, assume Earth is a spherical thermos with anizotropic isolation layer (100% reflectivity inside, 0% outside). With any, even weak energy source outside, the temperature rise is linear, to infinity. The reflectivity isn't infinite or zero, but glasshouses (with plants) exist, and don't behave like black spheres - the temperature rise in them is more than 5 degrees.
Care to elaborate as to why my statement is incorrect?
There's already an extensive system of anti-missile defenses in Alaska. The system to be placed in Poland is not a prototype or such, but a plain copy of what is already in widespread use in the US. I'm surprised to find out I know more about the US defense systems than you do.
With that said, I doubt that average student in the world learns about ALL, let alone more than 5 states (Washington D.C., NY, CA, Texas, and maybe Florida) which are equal in size to your countries.
I doubt anyone in Poland asked about Kentucky or Minnesota would seek them in southern Asia or Africa. That's exactly what you get in the US when asking about Finland or Romania. And it's not just a geography knowledge - kids coming back from schools in the US to Poland must enter a class a year or two below their age, because that's how far behind the US education leaves them.
Considering that I have been to places well beyond 1000KM probably means that I have traveled further than you have.
I was on trips of 1000Km and more, not by plane too - trains, cars, ferry. In the course I crossed borders of 4 other countries, two of them on foot - but it doesn't really matter. Want a bragging contest? Here we go. In Europe, 100 miles is a long way to go. In the US, 100 years is a long time ago.
I live in a city which currently cellebrates its 750th anniversary of its city rights, and has quite a few places left from that times, not to mention all the history inbetween: a royal castle of about 500 years of royal rule over the country, a network of forts leftover from Swedish occupation, a restaurant left unchanged from the times of cultural revolution, and another one where kings have dined 500 years ago. The shortcut to a tram leads through a place where Kosciuszko (do you know the name? Should ring a bell!) was sworn in, the shortest route to my medical centre leads through remains of a german concentration camp, just by a hill artificially created over 1000 years ago in pre-christian times for relligious purposes, overlooking the former jewish ghetto district, not changed all that much since the times when it was the ghetto. I visit a friend in a district built in times of Stalin, as a showcase of the socialist thought, then we go drink a beer under the same trees where some of the best polish poets would seek inspiration 150, 200 years ago. I plan on starting riding horses at a small palace about half a kilometer away from where I live. It was built in 1535, being a residence of noble families. It was military barracks during the IWW, gestapo headqyarters during IIWW, now it's a riding center. And it's quite near of a football (soccer) stadium of the oldest polish soccer club, a hundred years old last year. A bit further there are some buildings of oldest and most prestigeous polish university, which was funded some 550 years ago.
So... what interesting historical pieces are there in your location?
"In short, if somewhere the amount of water lowers, it will increase somewhere else."
Yes. Decreases in the soil, increases in the stratosphere. High air temperature will prevent the steam from concentrating into rain, and increased air humidity will further contribute to the glasshouse effect. Barren soil will evaporate water even faster. Oceans, cooler than land, will act as concentration centres meaning rain will fall over oceans, while land loses even more water. Live plants tie moisture in the ground, drying up they leave the soil without the protective cover, meaning any rain after a prolonged drought will evaporate immediately.
Sure it will lead to violent storms. Hurricanes, thunderstorms, short disastrous rainfalls destroying the vegetation and not leaving enough water for long enough to sustain vegetation, separated by months of drought killing whatever rapid water flow didn't. That is, near the coast. The centres of large continents won't see any rain.
Except higher temperature means faster evaporation of water. Plants die without water.
EU increase of emissions in 2000-now is artificially inflated by sheer increase of EU territory.
Suddenly all the emissions of Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary and some more began counting towards total EU emissions.
"The entity known as Darwin is going to take care of everything. If there is global warming, pollution, toxic environment, rampant cancer then Humans will have children that can handle it." ...or alternatively humans will become extinct and a different species will take over.
Don't miss out that part.
Yep, likely the actual amount of emission per square kilometer was reduced. Not even because of countering actions but because of lower degree of industrialization of the new countries (their original emission/km was lower than in EU).
I thought about debunking your arguments, but the more I read the more I see you're a troll.
Proof?
5) more co2 in the athmosphere will be automatically countered by more heat. That's how it works.
Some new science we got here.
Did they patch the LYNXDOWNLOAD:// URL vulnerablity yet?
The bugs are not in the rendering engine, they are in the user interface design and protection mechanisms. These are exploits against currently protected features, except the protection is being circumvented.
(when installing an extension, you see a timer counting down before you can click "OK". So if we focus that window on keypress of Enter, the keyup event and the actual keypress will go to the OK button, not to the TEXTAREA you were using before.
Firefox is running on its own cross-platform framework and the bug exists in the upper-level layers - javascript, frame display etc. The exploits aren't really bugs per se, they are more of a clever hacks that use existing mechanisms to permit actions they were not meant to. Say, Firefox prevents input into a dialog/field from within javascript, just from the keyboard, but it allows to manipulate the focus, so when you press enter in one element, your keypress gets executed in a different one, say you put a newline in a forum and the keypress confirms installation of an "extension" from an evil site, instead of putting a newline in your post.
Do you normally draw illogical inferences based on little to no knowledge?
Oh, so you're an unique subset of two minorities: about 5% of Americans that know where Poland is, and another 5% that believe all Americans know it.
"then America will most likely put one up in either Canada or Alaska to offer North America protection from China"
wow. Just wow. And you accuse me of ignorance.
Get a map.
Norway, Sweden, Finland, east of Germany. Maybe Denmark. If the location was Romania or Greece, all , or almost all of Europe would be protected. Except not from Russia.
"Launches of what?"
Launches of suborbital missiles that fly over Africa, Antarctica, Pacific Ocean, North Pole, and in the end fall on Europe flying over Poland.
Or the ones that make a big circle through Russia or Atlantic Ocean and come back to Europe from North.
Check location of Europe on the map. Check location of Iran. Then check location of Poland. Then try to draw possible trajectories of missiles launched from Iran, flying to most of Europe, that could be intercepted by missiles from Poland.
"It actually will protect Europe from Russian, _Chinese_, _NK_, and _Iranian_ launches."
Typical geography knowledge of an American. Yeah, it might protect Finland from Iranian launches. Or maybe some of Sweden and northwest of Norway. Poland is way too far north to protect centre of Europe from the Middle East. I'd understand Romania or Grecce, but Poland is strictly against Russia, and Russia's reaction is quite natural. Oh, and same bullshit goes to the US. So North Korea launches the missiles 3/4 the way around the globe to include Poland on the route to the US? Iran makes a 2000km detour north before the missiles are turned west? China... China, with some luck could launch over Russia, Poland, Greenland, wrap around northern Canada and hit Alaska in a straight line like that.
Oh, but we all know Bush isn't too good at geography...
Yep, except the targetting itself is a process of picking a pre-selected set of coordinates from a list of known, prioritized targets. The list of targets is a matter of careful planning, and their coordinates are a result of espionage and precise target recognition. It's not like "They fired their rockets. I want coordinates of all their military bases as soon as the satellite can locate them"
Likely until now the targets in Poland included some strategical bridges, some cities, sea ports, airports, and were quite low on the list, "just in case something goes on very very wrong". Now the first rockets to be fired will fall on the territory of Poland, on the location of the shield base if the exact location is known, on all the suspected locations of the base, if no exact position has been found.