The reason why many scientists believe global warming will increase
cloud cover goes something like this: Increase CO2 and CH4 levels,
the atmosphere absorbs more IR and heats up, this heating up leads to
more water vapor in the air due to enhanced evaporation and because
warm air can "hold" more water vapor than cold air, more water vapor
leads to more clouds. A really simple way of looking at it which may be
wrong, when all feedback mechanisms come into play, but it's at least
plausible. Incidentally, water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas
and increasing its concentration in the atmosphere will lead to more
warming, all else being equal.
However, whether increased cloud cover will result in cooling depends
upon what type of cloud is increasing in coverage. The article mentions
that increasing cloud cover may put the brakes on global warming, the
idea being that more clouds means more incoming solar radiation being
reflected into space (increasing the planet's albedo). This is one
possible scenario and might occur if the total amount of *low* clouds
increased. However, if the total amount of *high* clouds increased
(cirrus, cirrostratus, the thin wispy ice clouds), this lead to a
positive feedback mechanism that might lead to further warming. The
reason being is high clouds are relatively transparent to incoming solar
radiation (visible light etc) while absorbing very well in the infrared
part of the spectrum (where the earth radiates its energy). So high
clouds act kind of like a greenhouse gas.
All the article really states is that we've found that the earth is not
in radiative equilibrium, which means the total amount of radiation
entering the earth's atmosphere isn't the same as the total amount
leaving. A body which is not in radiative equilibrium will experience
a change in temperature. That's the simple way to look at it. But the
Earth is one complex beastie and all the feedback mechanisms aren't
known, and won't be for a long time.
And yeah, if the "conveyor belt" (thermohaline) circulation were to
cease due to freshening of the northern seas due to melting ice and more
precip, Northern Europe would be in for quite a shock. It's happened
before and it will certainly happen again, someday.
The current line of inquiry is to introduce microbes to recreate the greenhouse effect that is wreaking havoc on our environemnt...
The greeehouse effect keeps our planet from being about 60 degrees F colder than it is and makes life possible. The greenhouse effect is GOOD. Greenhouse warming (also called the enhanced greenhouse effect) is what has people concerned.
Climate scientist have known about the urban heat island effect for a long time, and have *not* swept it under the rug. Statistical tools are used to take into account the UHI so as not to give a false impression of a more intense warming than is truly being experienced. Ask the good folks at NCDC about sweeping the UHI under the rug!
There wasn't one model, there have always been lots of models. Over time computers get faster and more powerful, our understanding of the earth system improves, our models imporve. I agree that today's models still suck, but if you actually look at the code and the parameterizations, they are getting better over time. And *all* of the models predict an increase in global average temperature, they just don't agree on the magnitude of the global average temperature and the distribution of temperature and precipitation perturbations. What seems to be agreed upon is that higher latitudes will experience the strongest warming (alredy seeing some of this), most of the warming signature is seen at night (nighttime low temps are rising) and that while more intense rainfall will be experienced in some regions, interior continental regions which are already prone to drought will experience even more severe droughts.
This is not pure politics, there is solid science behind the following statement: If you increase the amount of so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the global temperature will rise. The question is, by how much, and what are the feedbacks which will respond to this increase in temperature.
One scary aspect of the whole pollution/global warming scenario is that as we clean up our emissions and decrease the amount of sulfur emissions (sulfer dioxide, sulfur trioxide) we are going to experience a warming since these sulfate particles have a cooling effect on the atmosphere. Volcanoes are natural sources of sulfates (and a lot of other stuff including soot and water vapor) and it is interesting to note the year following Mt. Pinatubo's eruption we experienced a statistically significantly cooler year.
To be fair, the earth has experienced natual swings in climate due to mechanisms we are not completely sure of. Carbon dioxide appears to be a big player in climatic temperatures. We have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from pre-industrial times by over 30 percent. This is a big forcing to the radiation balance of the earth! Whether other mechanisms will respond significantly in the opposite direction of global warming (negative feedbacks) remains to be seen, but if you actually look at the data and the climate record it appears we humans are having a definite effect on climate.
And there are certainly good arguments to be made for switching over to non-fossil fuels which do not involve the global warming argument anyway.
Hewlett-Packard: responsible for confusing generations of calculator users.
Are you kidding? Reverse Polish Notation is a wonderful thing. Who needs parentheses (a la TI) anyway... just pop the stack. I fondly remember my 1st HP calculator... an 11C I think... and still use my 41 CX (with Math/Stat plugin doodad) when doing problem solving.
I think the 15 C could do arrays operations, such as solve determinants and systems of equations etc. When I was in college my 41 CX saved me a few points on an exam; I was solving an integral by hand and missed a sign and that became apparent after approximating the integral solution with the calculator.
In fact, now that I think back, the 41CX was my high school graduation present. Such fond memories. Rest in peace Mr. Hewlett!
Volcanoes spew particulate matter (smoke), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide (CO2) water vapor (H2O) and other gases. Sulfur aerosols block incoming solar radiation and actually have a net cooling effect of the earth's surface. The stratosphere is a very stable region of the atmosphere (due to warming from ozone absorption of ultraviolet light) and if particulate matter gets into the stratosphere, it can take a while for it to get out. Partuclate matter blocks incoming solar radiation (remember when we used to worry about nuclear winter?). Many volcanic eruptions are not all that rich in carbon dioxide. Hence, in the short term, volcanoes typically have a net cooling effect.
Emission rates of SO2 from an active volcano range from 10 million tonnes/day according to the style of volcanic
activity and type and volume of magma involved. For example, the large explosive eruption of Mount Pinatubo on 15 June 1991
expelled 3-5 km 3 of dacite magma and injected about 17 million tonnes of SO2 into the stratosphere. The sulfur aerosols resulted in a
0.5-0.6C cooling of the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere. The sulfate aerosols also accelerated chemical reactions that,
together with the increased stratospheric chlorine levels from human-made chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, destroyed ozone and
led to some of the lowest ozone levels ever observed in the atmosphere.
Mount Pinatubo. A volcano in the Philippine Islands that erupted in 1991.
The eruption of Mount Pinatubo ejected enough particulate and sulfate
aerosol matter into the atmosphere to block some of the incoming solar
radiation from reaching Earth's atmosphere. This effectively cooled the
planet from 1992 to 1994, masking the warming that had been occurring for
most of the 1980s and 1990s.
CO2 and H2O are both powerful greenhouse gases. Without greenhouse warming the global average temperature would be about 0 degrees Fahrenheit. One of the big concerns of increasing CO2 concentrations is that if the atmosphere warms up, the amount of water vapor present in the atmosphere will also increase. In layman's terms, a warm atmosphere can "hold" more water vapor than a colder atmosphere; see the Clausius Clapyeron equation which shows that saturation vapor pressure (the total "capacity" of the air to "hold" water vapor) increases exponentially with increasing temperature.
As an atmospheric scientist I belive we are carrying on a great experiment, one which has no control experiment to run in parallel. Separating natural climate variability from anthropogenc (man-made) change is one of the biggest challenges we face today. However I encourage anyone who thinks humans aren't having an effect on the environment to take a look at CO2 traces from Mauna Loa which have been kept for over fifty years. There is a steady trend upward that occurs in concert with human emissions. There is little doubt where this CO2 came from.
Concerning the ice ages: variations in the earth's orbit (tilt, eccentricity, precession) are strongly linked with the big ice ages. These occur on scales of tens of thousands of years. However, ice core samples and sea floor samples suggest that the transitions between "normal" climates and "anomalous" climates have happened over only a handful of years, not gradually as was once thought. If we perturb the system hard enough, we could get into another "anomalous" regime (turn off deep convection near Greenland which would shut off the Gulf stream, chilling England etc.).
The truth is, if our climate changes significantly, the earth will keep on turning, millions if not billions of humans may die (think of rising sea levels, mosquito-borne disease etc.), but life will continue. In the end it will not matter who caused what or who was right or who was wrong.
Absolutely. As a scientific researcher, the ability to be able to search a topic and have actual abstracts or full articles come up is so very useful and saves me much time.
"Harshly criticizing" the internet is like harshly criticizing radio waves. Both are a medium. What is done with that medium is up to human beings, who seem to harbor great interest in things which aim for the solar plexus such as car chases, explosions, and sex. I think Mr. Billington is too worried about his own job security and/or has been watching too much Tee Vee to get his information on "the internet". Can't he see that we can have the best of both worlds? I doubt books will ever completely go away, and believe that having books displayed in the electronic medium can coexist with books in the old paper and ink medium.
Leigh Orf
p.s. I did not find the word "arrogant" in the article which you cite... c'mon slashdot, no need to embellish.
I downloaded the ISO and fired 'er up. After choosing upgrade, the installer probes for my hard drives and mount gives an invalid argument error on/dev/hda1 (which is not a mountable partition in the first place) and then hangs after spewing Python errors. I get this in all three modes. I can mount my HD manually, but that doesn't help me.
What's the RIAA gonna do when people start exchanging music over the ether in shortened PCCM format (ripped directly from CD, temporarily compressed in a lossless way)? Oh wait, people are already doing that! I find it interesting that MP3 is being labelled as the big bugaboo while CD-R's are down to about a buck a piece if you buy in bulk, and good ol' PCCM doesn't have the issues (lossy compression) today's MP3's have.
I'm not advocating piracy, but the cat is long out of the bag. Unless the record companies stop releasing stuff on CD, I can't imagine how they are going to stem the tide of n-generation cloning.
Of course, the could tax the hell out of the CD-R format a la Canada (did that ever happen?)...
I'm glad to see images like that which do not depend upon those infernal red/green 3-D glasses. In order for the third dimension to pop up with those, you must have 'fusion', i.e., your eyes both focus upon the same point when you look at something. Many people, including myself, suffer from what is called 'strabismus' which just means your eyes don't fuse. I'm slightly crosseyed from a bad operation in my youth for lazy-eye, and am always frustrated with the 3-D mars (and other) pics... National Geographic recently had a whole spread with those images and they looked like green & red shit to me.
Technology such the Immersadesk/CAVE is great for folks like me because the 3-D nature of the images doesn't rely on your eyes' ability to fuse. And the cited Mars images used color being to represent the third dimesion, up/down, and this conveys lots of information to the viewer. Of course this assumes you are not seriously colorblind (I am slightly red/green).
Ah, for the days when we can wire right info right into the brain. Or maybe not.
This is good, at least they have a solid policy in writing. Speaking for myself as an avid trader I would never dream of going to a format which is less accurate than CD-R/DAT for trading, and there are many studio quality recordings out there with no generational degradation (love digital trading)... and CD-R's are cheap... but having MP3's will be nice for downloading and previewing stuff. I think most of the hard-core traders don't care much about MP-3 unless it gets beyond the "better than cassette but not as good as CD" level of quality.
I wonder if the band will have the same policy for good ol' PCM. You can squish a full CD-R to about 300 MB with shorten (roughly the wav equivelant of gzip). With cable modems/xDSL getting cheaper fully lossless online digital trading is becoming more of a reality, 'cept when everyone else on your subnet is doing the same thing and you're getting modem-fast transfer speeds.
As has been noted, Earth Shoes were in their heyday in the '70s. I've been scanning in old newsletters from WORT (Madison, WI community radio station) as part of an archival project, and there are several Earth Shoes ads in those newsletters. If anyone's interested see this link as well as some of the other newsletter links, they're logically named. Beware, the images are kinda big (~400 KB or so) and I'm not done cleaning them up. From the brief news.com article it appears this new company ``acquired the [Earth Shoes] trademark'', which probably means the old Earth Shoes trademark was no longer valid, or the new company bought it. My honey tells me the original Earth Shoes were uncomfortable as hell. They sure were ugly!
While many of his arguments were flawed as has been covered by other contributors, the fact that he butchered Linus' last name severely discredits the entire article IMO.
Let's face it folks, nobody *knows* what the future will bring. It's all mental masturbation. All I know is it's fuckin' great to be alive in a world where I have a better-than-Ultrix 4.2 (what I was brought up on) Unix workstation on my desk *at home*. I only dreamed of that 5 years ago.
As far as the future of Linux goes, let the people decide. Linux is what you make of it. Nobody will force bloat down your throat (hehe). The modularization of the kernel is such a wonderful thing. I'm not a kernel programmer, but I can't understand why the central kernel code itself should need to rise exponentially... I'd guess more along the lines of *linearly* if it's being done 'right'. And I imagine the module code will increase with whatever the market brings. But that's just mental masturbation;)
Slashdot Mirror
The reason why many scientists believe global warming will increase
cloud cover goes something like this: Increase CO2 and CH4 levels,
the atmosphere absorbs more IR and heats up, this heating up leads to
more water vapor in the air due to enhanced evaporation and because
warm air can "hold" more water vapor than cold air, more water vapor
leads to more clouds. A really simple way of looking at it which may be
wrong, when all feedback mechanisms come into play, but it's at least
plausible. Incidentally, water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas
and increasing its concentration in the atmosphere will lead to more
warming, all else being equal.
However, whether increased cloud cover will result in cooling depends
upon what type of cloud is increasing in coverage. The article mentions
that increasing cloud cover may put the brakes on global warming, the
idea being that more clouds means more incoming solar radiation being
reflected into space (increasing the planet's albedo). This is one
possible scenario and might occur if the total amount of *low* clouds
increased. However, if the total amount of *high* clouds increased
(cirrus, cirrostratus, the thin wispy ice clouds), this lead to a
positive feedback mechanism that might lead to further warming. The
reason being is high clouds are relatively transparent to incoming solar
radiation (visible light etc) while absorbing very well in the infrared
part of the spectrum (where the earth radiates its energy). So high
clouds act kind of like a greenhouse gas.
All the article really states is that we've found that the earth is not
in radiative equilibrium, which means the total amount of radiation
entering the earth's atmosphere isn't the same as the total amount
leaving. A body which is not in radiative equilibrium will experience
a change in temperature. That's the simple way to look at it. But the
Earth is one complex beastie and all the feedback mechanisms aren't
known, and won't be for a long time.
And yeah, if the "conveyor belt" (thermohaline) circulation were to
cease due to freshening of the northern seas due to melting ice and more
precip, Northern Europe would be in for quite a shock. It's happened
before and it will certainly happen again, someday.
Leigh Orf
Reading that page makes
my head hurt; haiku is more
than five seven five
The current line of inquiry is to introduce microbes to recreate the greenhouse effect that is wreaking havoc on our environemnt...
The greeehouse effect keeps our planet from being about 60 degrees F colder than it is and makes life possible. The greenhouse effect is GOOD. Greenhouse warming (also called the enhanced greenhouse effect) is what has people concerned.
Climate scientist have known about the urban heat island effect for a long time, and have *not* swept it under the rug. Statistical tools are used to take into account the UHI so as not to give a false impression of a more intense warming than is truly being experienced. Ask the good folks at NCDC about sweeping the UHI under the rug!
Leigh Orf
There wasn't one model, there have always been lots of models. Over time computers get faster and more powerful, our understanding of the earth system improves, our models imporve. I agree that today's models still suck, but if you actually look at the code and the parameterizations, they are getting better over time. And *all* of the models predict an increase in global average temperature, they just don't agree on the magnitude of the global average temperature and the distribution of temperature and precipitation perturbations. What seems to be agreed upon is that higher latitudes will experience the strongest warming (alredy seeing some of this), most of the warming signature is seen at night (nighttime low temps are rising) and that while more intense rainfall will be experienced in some regions, interior continental regions which are already prone to drought will experience even more severe droughts.
This is not pure politics, there is solid science behind the following statement: If you increase the amount of so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the global temperature will rise. The question is, by how much, and what are the feedbacks which will respond to this increase in temperature.
One scary aspect of the whole pollution/global warming scenario is that as we clean up our emissions and decrease the amount of sulfur emissions (sulfer dioxide, sulfur trioxide) we are going to experience a warming since these sulfate particles have a cooling effect on the atmosphere. Volcanoes are natural sources of sulfates (and a lot of other stuff including soot and water vapor) and it is interesting to note the year following Mt. Pinatubo's eruption we experienced a statistically significantly cooler year.
To be fair, the earth has experienced natual swings in climate due to mechanisms we are not completely sure of. Carbon dioxide appears to be a big player in climatic temperatures. We have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from pre-industrial times by over 30 percent. This is a big forcing to the radiation balance of the earth! Whether other mechanisms will respond significantly in the opposite direction of global warming (negative feedbacks) remains to be seen, but if you actually look at the data and the climate record it appears we humans are having a definite effect on climate.
And there are certainly good arguments to be made for switching over to non-fossil fuels which do not involve the global warming argument anyway.
Leigh Orf
Professor of Atmospheric Science
Hewlett-Packard: responsible for confusing generations of calculator users.
Are you kidding? Reverse Polish Notation is a wonderful thing. Who needs parentheses (a la TI) anyway... just pop the stack. I fondly remember my 1st HP calculator... an 11C I think... and still use my 41 CX (with Math/Stat plugin doodad) when doing problem solving.
I think the 15 C could do arrays operations, such as solve determinants and systems of equations etc. When I was in college my 41 CX saved me a few points on an exam; I was solving an integral by hand and missed a sign and that became apparent after approximating the integral solution with the calculator.
In fact, now that I think back, the 41CX was my high school graduation present. Such fond memories. Rest in peace Mr. Hewlett!
Leigh Orf
See this link.
From http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg as.html:
Emission rates of SO2 from an active volcano range from 10 million tonnes/day according to the style of volcanic activity and type and volume of magma involved. For example, the large explosive eruption of Mount Pinatubo on 15 June 1991 expelled 3-5 km 3 of dacite magma and injected about 17 million tonnes of SO2 into the stratosphere. The sulfur aerosols resulted in a 0.5-0.6C cooling of the Earth's surface in the Northern Hemisphere. The sulfate aerosols also accelerated chemical reactions that, together with the increased stratospheric chlorine levels from human-made chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) pollution, destroyed ozone and led to some of the lowest ozone levels ever observed in the atmosphere.
From http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/glossary.html:
Mount Pinatubo. A volcano in the Philippine Islands that erupted in 1991. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo ejected enough particulate and sulfate aerosol matter into the atmosphere to block some of the incoming solar radiation from reaching Earth's atmosphere. This effectively cooled the planet from 1992 to 1994, masking the warming that had been occurring for most of the 1980s and 1990s.
CO2 and H2O are both powerful greenhouse gases. Without greenhouse warming the global average temperature would be about 0 degrees Fahrenheit. One of the big concerns of increasing CO2 concentrations is that if the atmosphere warms up, the amount of water vapor present in the atmosphere will also increase. In layman's terms, a warm atmosphere can "hold" more water vapor than a colder atmosphere; see the Clausius Clapyeron equation which shows that saturation vapor pressure (the total "capacity" of the air to "hold" water vapor) increases exponentially with increasing temperature.
As an atmospheric scientist I belive we are carrying on a great experiment, one which has no control experiment to run in parallel. Separating natural climate variability from anthropogenc (man-made) change is one of the biggest challenges we face today. However I encourage anyone who thinks humans aren't having an effect on the environment to take a look at CO2 traces from Mauna Loa which have been kept for over fifty years. There is a steady trend upward that occurs in concert with human emissions. There is little doubt where this CO2 came from.
Concerning the ice ages: variations in the earth's orbit (tilt, eccentricity, precession) are strongly linked with the big ice ages. These occur on scales of tens of thousands of years. However, ice core samples and sea floor samples suggest that the transitions between "normal" climates and "anomalous" climates have happened over only a handful of years, not gradually as was once thought. If we perturb the system hard enough, we could get into another "anomalous" regime (turn off deep convection near Greenland which would shut off the Gulf stream, chilling England etc.).
The truth is, if our climate changes significantly, the earth will keep on turning, millions if not billions of humans may die (think of rising sea levels, mosquito-borne disease etc.), but life will continue. In the end it will not matter who caused what or who was right or who was wrong.
Leigh Orf
Absolutely. As a scientific researcher, the ability to be able to search a topic and have actual abstracts or full articles come up is so very useful and saves me much time.
"Harshly criticizing" the internet is like harshly criticizing radio waves. Both are a medium. What is done with that medium is up to human beings, who seem to harbor great interest in things which aim for the solar plexus such as car chases, explosions, and sex. I think Mr. Billington is too worried about his own job security and/or has been watching too much Tee Vee to get his information on "the internet". Can't he see that we can have the best of both worlds? I doubt books will ever completely go away, and believe that having books displayed in the electronic medium can coexist with books in the old paper and ink medium.
Leigh Orf
p.s. I did not find the word "arrogant" in the article which you cite... c'mon slashdot, no need to embellish.
it's my windows NT partition. Obviously trying to mount that will give an error. I submitted a report to bugzilla.
I downloaded the ISO and fired 'er up. After choosing upgrade, the installer probes for my hard drives and mount gives an invalid argument error on /dev/hda1 (which is not a mountable partition in the first place) and then hangs after spewing Python errors. I get this in all three modes. I can mount my HD manually, but that doesn't help me.
I hope they put up a patched boot disk soon, GRR.
What's the RIAA gonna do when people start exchanging music over the ether in shortened PCCM format (ripped directly from CD, temporarily compressed in a lossless way)? Oh wait, people are already doing that! I find it interesting that MP3 is being labelled as the big bugaboo while CD-R's are down to about a buck a piece if you buy in bulk, and good ol' PCCM doesn't have the issues (lossy compression) today's MP3's have.
I'm not advocating piracy, but the cat is long out of the bag. Unless the record companies stop releasing stuff on CD, I can't imagine how they are going to stem the tide of n-generation cloning.
Of course, the could tax the hell out of the CD-R format a la Canada (did that ever happen?)...
I'm glad to see images like that which do not depend upon those infernal red/green 3-D glasses. In order for the third dimension to pop up with those, you must have 'fusion', i.e., your eyes both focus upon the same point when you look at something. Many people, including myself, suffer from what is called 'strabismus' which just means your eyes don't fuse. I'm slightly crosseyed from a bad operation in my youth for lazy-eye, and am always frustrated with the 3-D mars (and other) pics... National Geographic recently had a whole spread with those images and they looked like green & red shit to me.
Technology such the Immersadesk/CAVE is great for folks like me because the 3-D nature of the images doesn't rely on your eyes' ability to fuse. And the cited Mars images used color being to represent the third dimesion, up/down, and this conveys lots of information to the viewer. Of course this assumes you are not seriously colorblind (I am slightly red/green).
Ah, for the days when we can wire right info right into the brain. Or maybe not.
Leigh
This is good, at least they have a solid policy in writing. Speaking for myself as an avid trader I would never dream of going to a format which is less accurate than CD-R/DAT for trading, and there are many studio quality recordings out there with no generational degradation (love digital trading)... and CD-R's are cheap... but having MP3's will be nice for downloading and previewing stuff. I think most of the hard-core traders don't care much about MP-3 unless it gets beyond the "better than cassette but not as good as CD" level of quality.
I wonder if the band will have the same policy for good ol' PCM. You can squish a full CD-R to about 300 MB with shorten (roughly the wav equivelant of gzip). With cable modems/xDSL getting cheaper fully lossless online digital trading is becoming more of a reality, 'cept when everyone else on your subnet is doing the same thing and you're getting modem-fast transfer speeds.
As has been noted, Earth Shoes were in their heyday in the '70s. I've been scanning in old newsletters from WORT (Madison, WI community radio station) as part of an archival project, and there are several Earth Shoes ads in those newsletters. If anyone's interested see this link as well as some of the other newsletter links, they're logically named. Beware, the images are kinda big (~400 KB or so) and I'm not done cleaning them up. From the brief news.com article it appears this new company ``acquired the [Earth Shoes] trademark'', which probably means the old Earth Shoes trademark was no longer valid, or the new company bought it. My honey tells me the original Earth Shoes were uncomfortable as hell. They sure were ugly!
Leigh
While many of his arguments were flawed as has been covered by other contributors, the fact that he butchered Linus' last name severely discredits the entire article IMO.
;)
Let's face it folks, nobody *knows* what the future will bring. It's all mental masturbation. All I know is it's fuckin' great to be alive in a world where I have a better-than-Ultrix 4.2 (what I was brought up on) Unix workstation on my desk *at home*. I only dreamed of that 5 years ago.
As far as the future of Linux goes, let the people decide. Linux is what you make of it. Nobody will force bloat down your throat (hehe). The modularization of the kernel is such a wonderful thing. I'm not a kernel programmer, but I can't understand why the central kernel code itself should need to rise exponentially... I'd guess more along the lines of *linearly* if it's being done 'right'. And I imagine the module code will increase with whatever the market brings. But that's just mental masturbation
Orp