This attitude drives me crazy. Just because your phone rings, doesn't mean that you must answer it. My gf is like you. We're cuddled up on the couch, watching a movie, and her phone rings. She is psychologically incapable of ignoring it and checking the voice mail/caller ID later. She has to get up and see who is calling right that instant.
As for myself, the vast majority of the time my phone rings (mobile only, got rid of the land line years ago), I don't immediately answer it. If I have my hands free, I may look at the incoming number and decide if I have time to talk to that person now, but normally I just let it go to voice mail until I am ready to have a phone conversation. All of the people important to me know that if they need to talk to me right away and I haven't picked up, to call me right back. If my phone goes off twice in a row, especially if it's from the same number, I always pick up. But everyone also knows that when it rolls to voice mail, I usually call back within a few minutes, unless I'm in a meeting or doing something that takes longer. Then I will call as soon as I am able to.
Actually, electing judges is one of the things I really, really like about this place. As you point out, do you really want elected officials, specifically the executive branch, appointing their cronies as the 'third leg' of the checks and balances system? BTW, the DOJ, is under the Executive, so no benefit there.
The choices seem to be lifetime appointments by the Executive, and so one President/Governor can stack the court his way for a long, long time if he gets lucky by having several judges retire or die during his tenure, a la the Supremes and other Federal judgeships. Or appointments by the executive that can be changed by the next elected executive, a la many state judgeships. This is a really bad idea, essentially putting two branches of the government into the same pocket. Or third, let judges be elected by the general populace. Hopefully there are some minimal qualifications for running, like having passed the bar, etc. But it keeps the judges accountable for extremely bad decisions they make.
Personally, I don't like any of the options, but I don't have any better suggestions either.
1) Number of candidates and issues on the ballot. In my local election there were 25 races to be decided. In other local elections I heard of as many as 38 ballot issues. That makes for a lot of paper. We did it before, but electronic voting is a huge improvement over carrying the typically 1-3 11"x17" sheets and trying to mark them and maintain any kind of privacy. (Yes, the ballots really were printed on that size sheet in amazingly large type.)
2) Multiple voting locations. Here we have early voting for the two weeks prior to the actual election. On election day everyone has a polling location they must be at to cast their ballot. However, during the early voting period, anyone can go to any of the early polling locations in their county. Thus I was able to cast my early ballot at the polling location that sets up in the lobby where I work, even though I work in a completely different City from where I live. It also meant that I could cast my ballot on my lunch hour at my convenience, rather than having to drive all the way across town during voting hours to vote at the Elementary School location near my house. Having this flexibility, with paper only, used to require that every early voting location had to keep enough ballots on hand for every voting district in the county. This was a huge pile of paper, and many, many "excess" ballots that were never used, but had to be tracked and destroyed to make sure they were not abused.
3) Multiple languages. In many jurisdictions ballots must be provided in the speakers native language, usually Spanish, but just in our local school district there are 21 different languages that they try to integrate. With electronic balloting you can provide all of these, much easier and with much less expense and chance of mis-use of unused ballots.
In short, there are many reasons that electronic voting can be a huge improvement. It just needs to be implemented properly. And the kicker is that implementing it properly is relatively cheap, easy, and fast. Implementing it improperly, like it generally has been, is harder and can only be defended as a means to rig elections.
Nowhere did I state that I had a vote on how they would do things. I can still express my opinion if I think they are mis-managing my money.
That being said, in their IPO letter, Larry clearly stated:
In pursuing this goal, we may do things that we believe have a positive impact on the world, even if the near term financial returns are not obvious.
and
If opportunities arise that might cause us to sacrifice short term results but are in the best long term interest of our shareholders, we will take those opportunities. We will have the fortitude to do this. We would request that our shareholders take the long term view.
You might ask how long is long term? Usually we expect projects to have some realized benefit or progress within a year or two. But, we are trying to look forward as far as we can. Despite the quickly changing business and technology landscape, we try to look at three to five year scenarios in order to decide what to do now. We try to optimize total benefit over these multi-year scenarios.
Throughout the entire letter, it is clear that, while Larry and Sergey, are going to try to do good, and try not to do bad, they clearly believe this is the way to long term profit and growth. No place do they say they are going to do good, and spend money, just for the sake of doing good with no expectation of financial return.
I believe that a company can do both. Make money over the long term and do it ethically and with positive benefits to society and the world. That is precisely why I invested in GOOG, but I would no more "invest" in a company that was just going to piss my money away than I would throw that same money out the window. I give generously to charities, but on my terms. So far, Google has met all my expectations, and I am more than happy with my money's performance.
The original poster asked what possible near or mid-term benefits they could be getting by going "carbon neutral". I was responding with my first reaction when I heard the news. With the uncertainty of electricity in California, both prices and availability, I think that this is an incredibly far-sighted and intelligent move for a company that survives on that commodity. I support it completely, but I don't delude myself into thinking that this is purely and unselfishly for the benefit of humanity, or that it won't go directly to helping improve my stock performance.
Well, that's all part of it, isn't it. If I want to listen to music on a Windows machine, and I don't like WMP, it is easy for me to find out about Winamp, iTunes, or other good, highly polished apps. I can then go to the website, look at screen shots, read reviews and feature lists, etc. When I see one that looks good I click the big friendly download button. If I'm a complete novice and running IE, when the download starts I click the "run file" button when it asks to start the download, otherwise I save it to desktop, or to my hard drive. When it's done downloading, I click the friendly 'run' next to the file in download manger, or double-click the.exe wherever I saved it on the disk or desktop. Boom, the installer runs and my new application has a start menu entry and/or a desktop icon, and I can start using it.
On Ubuntu, it is search through Synaptic for applications whose description look like they might do what I am looking for, making sure to check all repositories. Fire up a browser to try to do research on them. Weed through the forum flamewars and cryptic support documents to figure out if it might work and look they way I want. Screenshots? HAHAHAHAHA. Go back to Synaptic and select the application for install. After it installs hope that it added itself somewhere to Applications (usually it doesn't). If it doesn't then go find the executable and get it to run, just to see if you like it.
Now, I'll get the replies of, "Why not just install and play with them all, then remove the ones you don't like." My answer is that I don't want to spend that kind of time on something that really in the grand scheme of things isn't that important. In the windows world, I can spend an hour searching for and finding the app that works best for me. In linux, I find it takes me all day.
What short-term or even mid-term payoff could there possibly be to being carbon neutral?
Well, since they are beginning by building a 10MW solar electrical generating station, I would imagine at that scale solar is probably cheaper than the rate they are getting from their electric provider. If not, as a shareholder, I'm upset they are pissing away my dividends.
Obviously not. There have been countless stories talking about how easy it would be that have gotten exactly no traction with the mainstream media, or the general public. This has been harped on for years, at least two years prior to the previous presidential election.
I fully understand and support this article. Without an "OMG look at exactly how easy this is, and now it soooo public anyone can do it" step-by-step article, it will get no more attention than it has to date. Hopefully, this will cause so much upset and attention it can't be ignored.
Who am I kidding, this will just get swept under the rug and buried by The Powers That Be(TM), whilst the sheeple get distracted by the next America's Dancing with the Idols on a Lost Island.
No, you totally miss the point. This isn't about failing to recognize a face you are looking for becuase someone uses a disguise, although that is a perfectly valid reason to despise police and gevernment use of this technology. This is about the absurdly high number of false positives you get. So next time you are walking through the airport, get pulled into a back room, falsly identified as a terrorist (after all if the computer says you're him, you must be traveling with false identification), secretly deported to another country and "questioned", then let loose in a completely different country with no passport, ID, or documentation, just because the computer thought you resembled a potential terrorist. You might re-think your position on this.
Not really, since you can entirely eliminate the fractional distillation process, which is most of the cost of current methods. Of course, oxygen from water seperation is still going to be far more expensive than the current oxygen production methods. How do I know this? Because if it was cheaper, then that is how the current oxygen suppliers would be making it. Of course, there may be economies of scale, and as essentially waste gas, the oxygen produced at the hydrogen stations could be sold at a loss rather than just venting it. On the other hand, I imagine that the demand for pure oxygen is a rather fixed, or at least stable, quantity. I would bet that the waste oxygen from even 30%-50% of our hydrogen economy needs would more than supply all of the pure oxygen requirements, so we still end up venting a lot of it.
Is $25 a year that critical to your budget? Hell, I'm reading this thread while drinking a bottle of Scotch that cost 6 times that much.
And let's see... 5 seconds for turning on a PC, figure I do that a minimum of 3 times per day, 300 days per year. That's 75 minutes (1.25 hours) per year. At my current billing rate that equates to $75 per year. So I'm supposed to give up $75 of my time to save $25?
So you see no advantage to going to conferences or classrooms as learning experiences? Let's just shut down all the colleges then. Pheonix U online should be just as good as Harvard or MIT.
Oh, wait, now maybe there is some advantage to the classroom/conference format. OK, now if you want more people to show up, you have to get a bigger meeting space, arrange dates for when it's not in use by some other organization, arrange for people to travel to the location, arrange for places for them to stay, and figure out a way to pay for all of that.
But if we can get all of the advantages to a real-time, interpersonal learning environmet with top notch presentations and leading experts, but with none of the travel, hosting, or cost issues, isn't this exactly the kind of value added service we (that being technology advocates) have touted the web as providing for so many years? Yes, it comes wrapped in all the other silliness and baggage that is Second Life, but had Sun released this as a stand alone client/learning environment, and Second Life didn't exist, everyone would be hailing this as proof that tech can provide most of the benefits of a real life meeting, while avoiding the static and overly artificial interaction of webpages and forums. In fact, once VoIP is fully integrated, and dynamic expressions become easier and clearer (a frown while someone is listening to you, or the tone/type of clapping after your presentation provides a world of useful information back to a speaker) this could replace 80% of the gain I get from attending conferences. That loss would be more than offset by using this to allow me to attend far more learning and idea sharing forums.
I'm sorry, but I have to say, if I see a girl sitting reading David Weber, I am almost certainly going to go say hi and introduce myself. I apologize if this comes off as hitting on you or you are offended. But, besides at conventions, finding a normal, even semi-attractive lady that is reading one of my favorite authors is a very good clue that she would probably make, at least, very good friend material. Especially if she is doing so at a restaurant or shop that I also like to frequent.
And I do have to say that when I am out reading any of my favorite authors, and a polite lady, at least reasonably groomed, comes up to me and wants to talk about the book or author, I am more than happy to start a conversation on the subject. If I want privacy I read at home. Interacting with people is just as rewarding, and the book will still be there after they are gone. Sending away a possible friend is not a chance you may get again.
Did you even bother to read TFA before firing off your anti-global warming rant? Oh, this is/., I should know better than to ask that question.
However, had you done so, you would have seen that the issue projected here, from very reputable scientific sources, has nothing whatsoever to do with dealing with temperature swings. What this analysis does is show that with an increase of CO2 to around 1000ppm (approximately 3 times what we see today) there is significantly lower percentage of oxygen to dissolve into the oceans. That is simple math and chemistry, something I think even you should be capable of. With the accompanying tempurature increase, even a minor one, also decreasing the ability of oxygen to dissolve into the oceans, there is significant evidence that the oceans became highly anoxic. Once again this is verifiable scientific fact that has been a long standing puzzle to paleontologists studying the extinction events. This led to large blooms of H2S producing bacteria, verified by the relatively recent ability to use gas chromatography on small fossils. Following the projected amount of H2S that would have been produced by the amount of algea necessary for the amount of fossils, and following the rise/drop of carbon ratios from other data sources around the extinction events, he makes a pretty good case for large scale Hydrogen Sulphide emmisions from the ocean being the cause of the majority of the recorded extinctions.
Now, like you, I think that humanity would have no trouble adapting and surviving to even the most extreme tempurature shift projected. Yes, a lot of humanity would suffer, and a lot of pretty beach houses would disappear, but that is not species threatening. However, huge clouds of Hydrogen Sulphide being released from an anoxic ocean harboring little to no life other than extremophile bacteria is something that I think even our species as a whole might have a bit of difficulty coming to terms with. This is also the first report on "global warming" that was made from largly true science based evidence, rather than projections from highly questionable climate models, that I have seen. You can also throw in the vast amounts of methane held frozen in the deep ocean. How much of an oceanic temperature shift would be required to melt and release enough of that to also affect the temperature and aid in the increse is H2S bacteria?
What I will be interested in seeing in a followup is the analysis of other non-extinction event periods to see if there are any other times recorded where CO2 reached the 1000ppm event, without the accompanying evidence of H2S or extinctions.
Slashdot Mirror
If you count vultures and snakes, the GP still applies.
This attitude drives me crazy. Just because your phone rings, doesn't mean that you must answer it. My gf is like you. We're cuddled up on the couch, watching a movie, and her phone rings. She is psychologically incapable of ignoring it and checking the voice mail/caller ID later. She has to get up and see who is calling right that instant.
As for myself, the vast majority of the time my phone rings (mobile only, got rid of the land line years ago), I don't immediately answer it. If I have my hands free, I may look at the incoming number and decide if I have time to talk to that person now, but normally I just let it go to voice mail until I am ready to have a phone conversation. All of the people important to me know that if they need to talk to me right away and I haven't picked up, to call me right back. If my phone goes off twice in a row, especially if it's from the same number, I always pick up. But everyone also knows that when it rolls to voice mail, I usually call back within a few minutes, unless I'm in a meeting or doing something that takes longer. Then I will call as soon as I am able to.
You do realize that Chipotle's is owned by McDonald's, don't you?
The mod obviously has no sense of humor or proportion. I thought your post was a spot on reply to the GP.
But just like PJ and The Hobbit, keep the hope alive buddy, keep the hope alive.
Actually, electing judges is one of the things I really, really like about this place. As you point out, do you really want elected officials, specifically the executive branch, appointing their cronies as the 'third leg' of the checks and balances system? BTW, the DOJ, is under the Executive, so no benefit there.
The choices seem to be lifetime appointments by the Executive, and so one President/Governor can stack the court his way for a long, long time if he gets lucky by having several judges retire or die during his tenure, a la the Supremes and other Federal judgeships. Or appointments by the executive that can be changed by the next elected executive, a la many state judgeships. This is a really bad idea, essentially putting two branches of the government into the same pocket. Or third, let judges be elected by the general populace. Hopefully there are some minimal qualifications for running, like having passed the bar, etc. But it keeps the judges accountable for extremely bad decisions they make.
Personally, I don't like any of the options, but I don't have any better suggestions either.
1) Number of candidates and issues on the ballot. In my local election there were 25 races to be decided. In other local elections I heard of as many as 38 ballot issues. That makes for a lot of paper. We did it before, but electronic voting is a huge improvement over carrying the typically 1-3 11"x17" sheets and trying to mark them and maintain any kind of privacy. (Yes, the ballots really were printed on that size sheet in amazingly large type.)
2) Multiple voting locations. Here we have early voting for the two weeks prior to the actual election. On election day everyone has a polling location they must be at to cast their ballot. However, during the early voting period, anyone can go to any of the early polling locations in their county. Thus I was able to cast my early ballot at the polling location that sets up in the lobby where I work, even though I work in a completely different City from where I live. It also meant that I could cast my ballot on my lunch hour at my convenience, rather than having to drive all the way across town during voting hours to vote at the Elementary School location near my house. Having this flexibility, with paper only, used to require that every early voting location had to keep enough ballots on hand for every voting district in the county. This was a huge pile of paper, and many, many "excess" ballots that were never used, but had to be tracked and destroyed to make sure they were not abused.
3) Multiple languages. In many jurisdictions ballots must be provided in the speakers native language, usually Spanish, but just in our local school district there are 21 different languages that they try to integrate. With electronic balloting you can provide all of these, much easier and with much less expense and chance of mis-use of unused ballots.
In short, there are many reasons that electronic voting can be a huge improvement. It just needs to be implemented properly. And the kicker is that implementing it properly is relatively cheap, easy, and fast. Implementing it improperly, like it generally has been, is harder and can only be defended as a means to rig elections.
Nowhere did I state that I had a vote on how they would do things. I can still express my opinion if I think they are mis-managing my money.
That being said, in their IPO letter, Larry clearly stated: and
Throughout the entire letter, it is clear that, while Larry and Sergey, are going to try to do good, and try not to do bad, they clearly believe this is the way to long term profit and growth. No place do they say they are going to do good, and spend money, just for the sake of doing good with no expectation of financial return.
I believe that a company can do both. Make money over the long term and do it ethically and with positive benefits to society and the world. That is precisely why I invested in GOOG, but I would no more "invest" in a company that was just going to piss my money away than I would throw that same money out the window. I give generously to charities, but on my terms. So far, Google has met all my expectations, and I am more than happy with my money's performance.
The original poster asked what possible near or mid-term benefits they could be getting by going "carbon neutral". I was responding with my first reaction when I heard the news. With the uncertainty of electricity in California, both prices and availability, I think that this is an incredibly far-sighted and intelligent move for a company that survives on that commodity. I support it completely, but I don't delude myself into thinking that this is purely and unselfishly for the benefit of humanity, or that it won't go directly to helping improve my stock performance.
Well, that's all part of it, isn't it. If I want to listen to music on a Windows machine, and I don't like WMP, it is easy for me to find out about Winamp, iTunes, or other good, highly polished apps. I can then go to the website, look at screen shots, read reviews and feature lists, etc. When I see one that looks good I click the big friendly download button. If I'm a complete novice and running IE, when the download starts I click the "run file" button when it asks to start the download, otherwise I save it to desktop, or to my hard drive. When it's done downloading, I click the friendly 'run' next to the file in download manger, or double-click the
On Ubuntu, it is search through Synaptic for applications whose description look like they might do what I am looking for, making sure to check all repositories. Fire up a browser to try to do research on them. Weed through the forum flamewars and cryptic support documents to figure out if it might work and look they way I want. Screenshots? HAHAHAHAHA. Go back to Synaptic and select the application for install. After it installs hope that it added itself somewhere to Applications (usually it doesn't). If it doesn't then go find the executable and get it to run, just to see if you like it.
Now, I'll get the replies of, "Why not just install and play with them all, then remove the ones you don't like." My answer is that I don't want to spend that kind of time on something that really in the grand scheme of things isn't that important. In the windows world, I can spend an hour searching for and finding the app that works best for me. In linux, I find it takes me all day.
Well, since they are beginning by building a 10MW solar electrical generating station, I would imagine at that scale solar is probably cheaper than the rate they are getting from their electric provider. If not, as a shareholder, I'm upset they are pissing away my dividends.
First, somebody has to care enough about the results to make it worth the effort.
Obviously not. There have been countless stories talking about how easy it would be that have gotten exactly no traction with the mainstream media, or the general public. This has been harped on for years, at least two years prior to the previous presidential election.
I fully understand and support this article. Without an "OMG look at exactly how easy this is, and now it soooo public anyone can do it" step-by-step article, it will get no more attention than it has to date. Hopefully, this will cause so much upset and attention it can't be ignored.
Who am I kidding, this will just get swept under the rug and buried by The Powers That Be(TM), whilst the sheeple get distracted by the next America's Dancing with the Idols on a Lost Island.
If you are a typical slashdotter (like me), I bet she would still claim that not only is she ahead...but waaaaaaay ahead.
You don't want to see your fellow slashdotters naked.
No, you totally miss the point. This isn't about failing to recognize a face you are looking for becuase someone uses a disguise, although that is a perfectly valid reason to despise police and gevernment use of this technology. This is about the absurdly high number of false positives you get. So next time you are walking through the airport, get pulled into a back room, falsly identified as a terrorist (after all if the computer says you're him, you must be traveling with false identification), secretly deported to another country and "questioned", then let loose in a completely different country with no passport, ID, or documentation, just because the computer thought you resembled a potential terrorist. You might re-think your position on this.
Well, not today... not everyone only reads
Not really, since you can entirely eliminate the fractional distillation process, which is most of the cost of current methods. Of course, oxygen from water seperation is still going to be far more expensive than the current oxygen production methods. How do I know this? Because if it was cheaper, then that is how the current oxygen suppliers would be making it. Of course, there may be economies of scale, and as essentially waste gas, the oxygen produced at the hydrogen stations could be sold at a loss rather than just venting it. On the other hand, I imagine that the demand for pure oxygen is a rather fixed, or at least stable, quantity. I would bet that the waste oxygen from even 30%-50% of our hydrogen economy needs would more than supply all of the pure oxygen requirements, so we still end up venting a lot of it.
Is $25 a year that critical to your budget? Hell, I'm reading this thread while drinking a bottle of Scotch that cost 6 times that much.
And let's see... 5 seconds for turning on a PC, figure I do that a minimum of 3 times per day, 300 days per year. That's 75 minutes (1.25 hours) per year. At my current billing rate that equates to $75 per year. So I'm supposed to give up $75 of my time to save $25?
You sir, have obviously never used a Macbook Pro. Especially sitting on your lap while you wear shorts.
So you used Corel's predecessor Coral? Sounds like luxury to me.
So you see no advantage to going to conferences or classrooms as learning experiences? Let's just shut down all the colleges then. Pheonix U online should be just as good as Harvard or MIT.
Oh, wait, now maybe there is some advantage to the classroom/conference format. OK, now if you want more people to show up, you have to get a bigger meeting space, arrange dates for when it's not in use by some other organization, arrange for people to travel to the location, arrange for places for them to stay, and figure out a way to pay for all of that.
But if we can get all of the advantages to a real-time, interpersonal learning environmet with top notch presentations and leading experts, but with none of the travel, hosting, or cost issues, isn't this exactly the kind of value added service we (that being technology advocates) have touted the web as providing for so many years? Yes, it comes wrapped in all the other silliness and baggage that is Second Life, but had Sun released this as a stand alone client/learning environment, and Second Life didn't exist, everyone would be hailing this as proof that tech can provide most of the benefits of a real life meeting, while avoiding the static and overly artificial interaction of webpages and forums. In fact, once VoIP is fully integrated, and dynamic expressions become easier and clearer (a frown while someone is listening to you, or the tone/type of clapping after your presentation provides a world of useful information back to a speaker) this could replace 80% of the gain I get from attending conferences. That loss would be more than offset by using this to allow me to attend far more learning and idea sharing forums.
And yet you hang out and post on
Yup...I can't wait to buy my first can of Soylent Green at the grocery store. mmMMmm.
Because we do trust everything the corporation tells us, right?
Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right.
I'm sorry, but I have to say, if I see a girl sitting reading David Weber, I am almost certainly going to go say hi and introduce myself. I apologize if this comes off as hitting on you or you are offended. But, besides at conventions, finding a normal, even semi-attractive lady that is reading one of my favorite authors is a very good clue that she would probably make, at least, very good friend material. Especially if she is doing so at a restaurant or shop that I also like to frequent.
And I do have to say that when I am out reading any of my favorite authors, and a polite lady, at least reasonably groomed, comes up to me and wants to talk about the book or author, I am more than happy to start a conversation on the subject. If I want privacy I read at home. Interacting with people is just as rewarding, and the book will still be there after they are gone. Sending away a possible friend is not a chance you may get again.
Did you even bother to read TFA before firing off your anti-global warming rant? Oh, this is
However, had you done so, you would have seen that the issue projected here, from very reputable scientific sources, has nothing whatsoever to do with dealing with temperature swings. What this analysis does is show that with an increase of CO2 to around 1000ppm (approximately 3 times what we see today) there is significantly lower percentage of oxygen to dissolve into the oceans. That is simple math and chemistry, something I think even you should be capable of. With the accompanying tempurature increase, even a minor one, also decreasing the ability of oxygen to dissolve into the oceans, there is significant evidence that the oceans became highly anoxic. Once again this is verifiable scientific fact that has been a long standing puzzle to paleontologists studying the extinction events. This led to large blooms of H2S producing bacteria, verified by the relatively recent ability to use gas chromatography on small fossils. Following the projected amount of H2S that would have been produced by the amount of algea necessary for the amount of fossils, and following the rise/drop of carbon ratios from other data sources around the extinction events, he makes a pretty good case for large scale Hydrogen Sulphide emmisions from the ocean being the cause of the majority of the recorded extinctions.
Now, like you, I think that humanity would have no trouble adapting and surviving to even the most extreme tempurature shift projected. Yes, a lot of humanity would suffer, and a lot of pretty beach houses would disappear, but that is not species threatening. However, huge clouds of Hydrogen Sulphide being released from an anoxic ocean harboring little to no life other than extremophile bacteria is something that I think even our species as a whole might have a bit of difficulty coming to terms with. This is also the first report on "global warming" that was made from largly true science based evidence, rather than projections from highly questionable climate models, that I have seen. You can also throw in the vast amounts of methane held frozen in the deep ocean. How much of an oceanic temperature shift would be required to melt and release enough of that to also affect the temperature and aid in the increse is H2S bacteria?
What I will be interested in seeing in a followup is the analysis of other non-extinction event periods to see if there are any other times recorded where CO2 reached the 1000ppm event, without the accompanying evidence of H2S or extinctions.