No, I'm thinking about the gravitational influence of the moon on our planet. Maybe you mis-interpereted what I meant by "wobble". The tilting back and forth of our planet I call a wobble. If you've ever looked at a 3D simulation of our planet at high speed over the course of say, ten years, it looks more like wobbling back and forth rather than simply tilting back and forth.
The Earth is not a perfect rotating sphere. And it's mass is not perfectly distributed. Left on it's own, without the influence of the moon, our nice fairly stable planet would be rotating on three axes simultaneously. Do a quick google to learn more about the stabilizing effect of the moon on our planet.
Even our orbit wouldn't be the same as the Earth would be more susceptible to external gravitational influences like the planets and the sun.
"The moon, for instance, is just in the right position to affect our tides so they aren't out of control."
Not really. We have tides because we have a moon. Without the moon, only the influence of the planets and the sun would affect our tides, which wouldn't amount to much.
The moon does act as a sort of gyro stabilizer. Because of it's influence, the axis of our planet wobbles in a fairly regular pattern, giving us seasons. Without the moon, that would become more erratic. Indeed, Earth could theoretically be spinning in all thre axes at once, which would make for some interesting weather patterns.
"I wonder what it would mean for Earth if we terraformed Mars, changed it's magnetic field. It might even effect life here."
Not likely. Mars at it's closest point is still 40 million miles away. Even if we possesed the technology to give Mars a stronger magnetic field (which we don't), the field strength drops of with the inverse square of the distance. And with the solar wind, that field would be infintismally small by the time it could reach Earth.
Short of blowing of a large chunk of Mars and sending it crashing into Earth, we're not going to affect our planet.
"I say we leave Mars alone before we kill ourselves."
I say we are far more likely to kill ourselves before we even make it to mars. But that's just my opinion.
Assuming we don't practice the great art of self-annihilation, we won't have much of choice of going to Mars in the relatively near future. Our planet is filling up. We have limited resources. We'll have to do something about that at some point.
There isn't anything we could do to Mars that would end up affecting this planet. We've already made enough of a mess of it already.
Why is it whenever anyone mentions X-rays or gamma rays, people freak out about cancer.
I chalk this up to general paranoia about radiation. We get hit with x-rays and gamma rays all the time. Our cells get belted with all sorts of radiation.
It is highly doubtful that this radiation (or X-rays from lightening bolts) are causing any sort of increase in cancer rates. You get more X-rays from your computer.
And while these gama ray bursts may happen, they are relatively weak. AND THERE STREAMING UP, NOT DOWN.
Worry about things like unknown pollution factors, not natural phenomena that has been occuring for millions of years.
Yeah. It says the CMMI isn't all it's cracked up to be.
No matter how much "process" you enforce, it will not make a madiocre programmer a good programmer or a good programmer a great programmer.
I've seen this first hand. CMMI has a way of stifling a lot of creativity because you spend more time writing down everything than experiementing and finding new and innovative solutions.
Don't get me wrong, some of the key practices are quite useful, even necessary for large projects. But a significant fraction of it is, for lack of better words, idealistically ignorant.
CMMI was based on a whole bunch of research conducted by Carnegie-Mellon into what the best engineering practices were by conducting surveys of major corporations.
They did well on depth, but not breadth. They left out some of the young pioneering guys. They tried to make a one-size-fits-all model that would essentially render engineering more like an assembly line. The CMMI slogan is there are no heroes. Everyone is a component of a machine. No one is any more valuable than anyone else.
This naive idealism about engineering, of course, is 100% incorrect. Like any profession, some parts can be streamlined or nailed down into a fixed pattern. But I have yet to work on any project where it could not have survived without the aid of exceptional talent and dedication.
In other words, creativity, inspiration, leadership, and innovation do not follow process.
Process is expensive. For each KPA, there is overhead. Documentation adds up. Managers must learn how the metrics apply. People have to be hired to manage the process. It could be argued that the cost of process is only worth it if it offsets the cost of your inefficiencies. Sometimes that is not the case, or there are better methods.
Learn about CMMI. Take the parts that are useful and throw the rest out. It's a source of ideas.
But don't ever asssume that just because a company is CMMI 5 means that they're any better than a CMMI 3 company.
That is unless you think you can measure a programmer strictly by lines of code and pages of documentation he developes per month.
You're right. Kids learn by example. But tyrannical censorship is one example I intend not to teach.
If I were to learn by example today, I would learn from our Great Leader(tm) that mass bloodshed, killing, and violence are ok if it's done in the name of (fill in most convenient excuse here). I would also learn that's it's ok to lie and intimidate. It's okay to spend lots of money I don't have. And it's even ok to go and beat the hell out of someone because I think they could be doing a Bad Thing(tm).
All these things I intend not to teach to my kids.
I will, however, sit down and explain these things to them like a responsible parent.
I will pay attention to my kids. If I notice something is wrong, then I will take appropriate action.
Penalizing society as whole for what any single person or group finds distasteful is nonsense and contradicts the very notion of what you call "freedom".
"What's wrong with people that they think a game that allows you to beat up women, shoot cops and steal cars is fun?"
What's wrong with people who read horror novels? What's wrong with people who read war novels?
Why isn't the question: What's wrong with these kids?
Millions of kids, teenagers, and adults play violent video games, read horror novels, etc. and I have yet to read a report about "Thousands of video gamers slaughter town!".
The problem has been, and always will be, the people. Someone with homicidal tendencies or is suffering from mental imbalances will not be helped by being involved with such media as the lines between fantasy and reality are already blurred.
Normal individuals do not suffer from these problems, as is evident by the rarity of such events.
"Read about the D.C. sniper case and get back to me. That kid had no wish to kill even though he was a good shot at the range. Only after playing a video game at the insistence of the older guy, did he gain the wish to kill."
I didn't get the urge to kill until I read your comment.
I take it these articles were from peer reviewed science journals and not the adminstration influenced psuedo science that they've been shoveling around?
I was referring to your comment about cooling over Antarctica. I presumed you were operating under the false assumption that global warming meant everywhere was warming, which is not the case.
We ARE affecting the environment and it is plain ignorance to think otherwise.
It's quite easy to see this. We live in the troposphere, an area roughly about 14 Km high. This is where we live, where our weather takes place, and where almost all life is.
The volume of our troposphere is about 5.12 x 10 18 cubic meters. Current global output of CO2 is roughly 6.7 billion tons a year and rising. Scientists have estimated the natural processes of earth take out about 3.7 billion tons a year, including oceanic algae.
Well, that leaves 3 billion tons a year unaccounted for. Assuming uniform distribution throught the atmosphere, we are increasing the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere by about 2 parts per million every year.
Of course that doesn't sound like much until you take into consideration that:
1. The insulating properties of CO2 2. The effects are cumulative.
This isn't even taking into acount other natural sources of CO2 and methane (methane is much worse than CO2).
Simple math. CO2 is an insulator. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat the planet will trap. The extra energy, since it is not being radiated off the planet, has to go somewhere.
Melting the caps over the course of a hundred years or so is probably one of the better scenarios that could happen. Effects from continued warming would most likely manifest itself in changes in weather patterns and ocean currents.
For evidence, 90% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat. The heat wave last year shrunk Europes glaciers by 10%. Look at the pictures of Kilamanjaro in the 70's and compare them to the ones taken now. The effect is far more dramatic in the Andes mountains, where an entire city may have to move as their primary source of water (a glacier) is now down to only 2% of it's original size. That's just in 40 years.
Best case scenario: We are just contributing to the problem. Worst case: We are the problem.
Shall we do nothing?
I'll look at core samples and satellite data. I'll ponder why the CO2 levels are at their highest point in 160,000 years. I'll think about the consequences of global climate change.
You sit their and read your novels. And perhaps someone with a bit more foresight will step up and take action.
My personal opinion about "The Day After Tommorow"? Good special effects film, but not much else. But what do you expect out of Hollywood.
If, and that's a big if, this were true it would absolutely disprove the fact that we have free will. Afterall, how could we have free will if events are predetermined?
We, as a species, almost died out when the Toba volcano erupted bringing on dramatic climatic changes.
How close? Some scientists say that we were down to a few thousand in population. I wouldn't call that okay. I would call that shit luck. Alot of other animals died out.
I don't think a lot of people understand exactly what kind of energy your talking about it comes to global warming. A change of 1 degree world wide is equivalent to thousands of nuclear weapons.
Do you really want to take the chance that we aren't contributing to that kind of energy buildup? Where will that energy go? What will that energy do?
I mean seriously. We don't understand to what extent our pollution is affecting the environment, even without considering global warming.
Global warming does not mean the entire planet is warming. It means the average world temperatures are increasing.
Global warming will cause some areas of the world to drop in temperature while in other areas the temperature will rise.
A novel "based on solid science". I see movies "based on true stroies", does this mean I should believe them.
There is a world-wide consensus of scientist saying that global warming is happening. They still don't know the full ramification of what will happen.
Rising sea levels is the least of their concerns. It doesn't take a lot of arctic melt-water to affect ocean currents the prevent places like Northern Europe from turning into a frozen tundra.
But it's okay. We can take your approach and not worry about. After all it's better to do nothing now then take small measures of prevention.
"Holy cow. It wasn't the US's fault that Kim-il-Sung invaded South Korea."
Our involvement in that area was nothing more than an excuse to follow the rules of McArthiesm. The US used communist then how they're using terrorism now.
"It wasn't the US's fault that Ho Chi Minh encouraged an insurgency against South Vietnam to prime them for a communist takeover."
And so what if he did? You use communism like it's a bad word. There's absolutely nothing wrong behind the ideals of communism. If humans were perfect, this would be the perfect government. But we have petty differences and idealogies that make the world what it is today.
Communism is a great theory, however no one yet has managed to implement it correctly.
If we had kept our noses out of their business, perhaps there would be a few hundred thousand people enjoying life today.
Vietnam, like Iraq, posed no significant threat to the US. Wars should only be fought as a last resort, and in self-defense.
"It wasn't the US's fault that Saddam invaded Iran to start the third bloodiest war of the century."
Actually we were very involved in that war. I doubt Saddam would have attacked Iran if he didn't have support of the US to back him up.
Again, you seem to gloss over the fact that the US actively helps out all kinds of bad evil people, as long as they help the US further it's agenda.
"It wasn't the US's fault that Saddam then decided to "annex" Kuwait."
Not directly. Saddam thought that the US would turn a blind eye to the whole thing, because we were such good buddies. What Saddam didn't realize was that we like our oil far more than we liked him.
"It wasn't the US's fault that Saddam starved his own people during the 1990s just for propaganda."
What has this got to do with anything? Is this a reason for invading another country? Then why aren't we in the Sudan? What about all those little places in the world where human rights abuses occur daily, like China?
If we're out to take out dictatorships, why is Cuba still around? Putin has repealed most of the democratic reforms in Russia and implemented some highly questionable practices. Why aren't we marching our armies through Moscow?
And last but not least, what about here in our own country. We have people being thown in jail and tortured without due process. The Geneva convetions were set up for a good reason. Don't expect captured American soldiers to be treated any differently.
"We are not the bad guys here. Your anger is sorely misplaced."
I believe your viewpoint is sorely misplaced. Do you honestly think that other countries don't view us as the bad guy. How about you put yourself on the receiving end of a GBU-28 bomb that just killed your family. What would you think of the "liberating US".
Good and Bad are very much in the eye of the beholder. And there are large number of people who think we are the bad guys.
"The actions we have taken in Afghanistan and Iraq were clearly authorized by the UN."
I don't know if you missed it, but the US invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN. The UN and many of our allies are pissed at us for this very reason.
"My goodness. Do you seriously look at Afghanistan and Iraq and think that we destroyed them?"
No, I'd say their in pretty good shape. How about you go over and live there for a few months, then get back to me on how good they got it now.
"Iraq posed a significant threat to us."
You have yet to state solid evidence to this effect. So far, you've used words like could, would, and should. Very weak for stating this assertion such as this.
The facts are in. Despite Saddam's ambitions, he was contained. He may have wanted WMD, but had no infrastructure to make them. Nor could they have rebuilt the infrastructure any time in the
You are missing the point. The fact that this is happening AT ALL is disturbing.
"If the scientific integrity of this office has been reduced because of corporate pressures, there's very little faith left in me for any scientific agency."
This is what the current administration is hoping for.
You are a troll. Or ignorant of US histroy. Or just plain ignorant.
The US has been responsible for more deaths, destruction and chaos since the 1950's than Saddam ever has.
We have WMD's. We disobey the UN fairly regularly. We destroyed two third world countries, inflicted thousands of deaths (civilian and military), and manage alienate a good protion of the world in the process.
And that was just in four years.
The world views the US as a threat, but a threat that they can't do anything about. We are arrogant, and belligerent. We're also hypocrites.
You gave a littany about the crimes of Saddam, but you overlook the crimes this country has commited and are still commiting right now.
You list looks rather paltry when viewed by a country who now wipes it's ass with the Geneva conventions.
Iraq was not a threat. By the time they could have rebuilt their country, Saddam would have died or have been replaced.
When we invaded, they had one scud missle that worked. None of their fighter craft could fly due to lack of parts. They had few tanks that still worked and most of their soldiers lacked ammunition for their guns. The infrastructure was barely holding together, electricty was flaky at best and clean drinking water was a rarity. Most of their factories were still in shambles, along with their entire economy. Two/thirds of the country was a regularly patrolled no fly zone.
Now, while this was going on, two countries saw what was going on and diverted the resources towards making a deterrent to prevent the same thing from happening to them, because they were on some Texan's hit list.
So instead of dealing with the real threats, we made up one and now after all the ash is falling we see not one but two "rogue" states with weapons that go boom.
The sad thing is, we already new they had the capability. Iraq had no such capability and the reports themselves said it would have taken a decade to get Iraq back to production capacity.
All this in the name of...what? Terrorism? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and some very thick documents detail this quite explicitly. WMD? They didn't have them. Freeing an oppressed country?
"How on earth can you claim that this was not a threat? How on earth can you claim that the world is not any safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power? "
The world will be a lot safer when countries don't go around forcing their idealogies and influence down other countrys throats.
Saddam was contained and not any real immediate threat. The bigger, more legitamate threats were ignored, mainly because they would have been a harder sell. But The rhetoric about Iran is starting to take on a familiar sound.
"Combine the above facts with the fact that we just had got our butts kicked on 9/11 by a similar threat that we had ignored"
Wrong. Dead wrong. We were not ignoring terrorism. Certain individuals were ignoring terrorism.
Anyway, I've posted before on why terrorism is the elast of our worries.
"And leaving him alone so he could write the playbook for any rouge despot who wanted to defy the US and the UN was NOT an option."
By that logic I guess we should just go and invade any country we please in order to secure ourselves.
Remember, when you go to point the finger at others make sure you don't have shit on your finger.
"When fanatical North Koreans fly airplanes into American buildings then I'll start to worry about them more. Until then I'm worrying about the religious zealots that want to see me dead."
This statement alone tells me you have bought into the terrorist paranoia.
You are far more likely to die falling down a flight of stairs than die in aterrorist attack. You are far far far more likely to die in a car wreck on your way to work than die in a terrorist attack.
Worried about terrorism are you? You're not worried about the plethora of diseases that are far more likely to kill you? You're not worried about cancer or heart disease? How about being mauled by a bear? Food poisoning? Falling off a ladder?
Do you not think about the fact that you're 8000 times more likely to die falling in your tub? What about slipping on a patch of ice?
However, terrorism is more likely to kill you than a meteor.
Terrorism has been little more than a very effectiove propaganda tool.
With that being said, logically your argument makes no sense.
NK had known stores of plutonium. These have been documented by the IAEA. It is quite likely that NK could have processed this into low grade nuclear weapons.
Now what should I be more worried about? Someone who actually has nuclear weapons and missle technology or some terrorist with a strap-on bomb?
Hmmm.....this is a tough one.
In truth, I'm worried about neither. NK has shown repeatedly that they like to bluster and terrorist...well...let's just say I'm more concerned about slipping on ice.
Perhaps I'm a bit fuzzy on this, but exactly when did companies get the rights to tell me what to do with something I bought with my own money?
I go to work everyday so I can buy myself the few nice amenities that I can afford. After I've paid for something, that should be the end. We made an agreement. I paid money for something, now you give it to me. End of story.
Once I've purchased something, that's it. The company has no right whatsoever to tell me what I can or cannot do. If I do something illegal, I should get arrested. If I take it apart and turn it into something better, good for me.
The software/music/movie companies are trying to have it both ways, and their winning because people have become apthetic to fundamental concept of owning something.
For example, the companies treat file-sharing as property theft. However, when it comes to making backup copies or reversing, it's no longer property but a liscence. The best of both worlds; they have you give them money then they can tell you what you can do. Talk about the perfect little money maker.
Does this seem normal to most people? Does the average Joe think this is okay?
Let's apply this model to other property we buy.
Could grocers slap a liscense on a bag of apples stating that if I agree to use this product, I cannot plant the seeds to make more of this product?
Can a grocer put an EULA on a tri-tip steak saying that if you agree to eat this you can only make the meat medium well and must marinate it for two hours?
Can a car manufacturer send a notice to you after you bought the car saying that by purchasing said car you agree to only travel on roads in Boston at speeds no greater than 20 mph?
Can a manufacturer forgo product testing merely by stating that they cannot be held liable for any damages caused by a defect in their product?
Then what is so fscking special about software and media that it is exempt from the normal rules of capitalism? Why do I have to pay money to give up my rights to owning a piece of property that apparently I don't own at all?
I agree that C is definately NOT the One True Language. I don't really think there is such a thing, at least not yet.
I do think that C/C++ has pretty good syntax structure. But like most languages nowadays, it can definately be abused. The Obfuscated C code contest is a prime example.
Some characteristics of the One True Language that I think would be necessary:
1. The power of assembler. 2. The speed at least to match a compiled language. 2. Grammatical simplicity. 3. Memory management (garbage collectors and such). 4. Security.
Some of the above are mutually exclusive.
It's still a matter of what you're trying to accomplish. Choose the right tool for the task.
Slashdot Mirror
"You're probably thinking of precession."
No, I'm thinking about the gravitational influence of the moon on our planet. Maybe you mis-interpereted what I meant by "wobble". The tilting back and forth of our planet I call a wobble. If you've ever looked at a 3D simulation of our planet at high speed over the course of say, ten years, it looks more like wobbling back and forth rather than simply tilting back and forth.
The Earth is not a perfect rotating sphere. And it's mass is not perfectly distributed. Left on it's own, without the influence of the moon, our nice fairly stable planet would be rotating on three axes simultaneously. Do a quick google to learn more about the stabilizing effect of the moon on our planet.
Even our orbit wouldn't be the same as the Earth would be more susceptible to external gravitational influences like the planets and the sun.
~X~
"The moon, for instance, is just in the right position to affect our tides so they aren't out of control."
Not really. We have tides because we have a moon. Without the moon, only the influence of the planets and the sun would affect our tides, which wouldn't amount to much.
The moon does act as a sort of gyro stabilizer. Because of it's influence, the axis of our planet wobbles in a fairly regular pattern, giving us seasons. Without the moon, that would become more erratic. Indeed, Earth could theoretically be spinning in all thre axes at once, which would make for some interesting weather patterns.
"I wonder what it would mean for Earth if we terraformed Mars, changed it's magnetic field. It might even effect life here."
Not likely. Mars at it's closest point is still 40 million miles away. Even if we possesed the technology to give Mars a stronger magnetic field (which we don't), the field strength drops of with the inverse square of the distance. And with the solar wind, that field would be infintismally small by the time it could reach Earth.
Short of blowing of a large chunk of Mars and sending it crashing into Earth, we're not going to affect our planet.
"I say we leave Mars alone before we kill ourselves."
I say we are far more likely to kill ourselves before we even make it to mars. But that's just my opinion.
Assuming we don't practice the great art of self-annihilation, we won't have much of choice of going to Mars in the relatively near future. Our planet is filling up. We have limited resources. We'll have to do something about that at some point.
There isn't anything we could do to Mars that would end up affecting this planet. We've already made enough of a mess of it already.
~X~
Why is it whenever anyone mentions X-rays or gamma rays, people freak out about cancer.
I chalk this up to general paranoia about radiation. We get hit with x-rays and gamma rays all the time. Our cells get belted with all sorts of radiation.
It is highly doubtful that this radiation (or X-rays from lightening bolts) are causing any sort of increase in cancer rates. You get more X-rays from your computer.
And while these gama ray bursts may happen, they are relatively weak. AND THERE STREAMING UP, NOT DOWN.
Worry about things like unknown pollution factors, not natural phenomena that has been occuring for millions of years.
~X~
Yeah. It says the CMMI isn't all it's cracked up to be.
No matter how much "process" you enforce, it will not make a madiocre programmer a good programmer or a good programmer a great programmer.
I've seen this first hand. CMMI has a way of stifling a lot of creativity because you spend more time writing down everything than experiementing and finding new and innovative solutions.
Don't get me wrong, some of the key practices are quite useful, even necessary for large projects. But a significant fraction of it is, for lack of better words, idealistically ignorant.
CMMI was based on a whole bunch of research conducted by Carnegie-Mellon into what the best engineering practices were by conducting surveys of major corporations.
They did well on depth, but not breadth. They left out some of the young pioneering guys. They tried to make a one-size-fits-all model that would essentially render engineering more like an assembly line. The CMMI slogan is there are no heroes. Everyone is a component of a machine. No one is any more valuable than anyone else.
This naive idealism about engineering, of course, is 100% incorrect. Like any profession, some parts can be streamlined or nailed down into a fixed pattern. But I have yet to work on any project where it could not have survived without the aid of exceptional talent and dedication.
In other words, creativity, inspiration, leadership, and innovation do not follow process.
Process is expensive. For each KPA, there is overhead. Documentation adds up. Managers must learn how the metrics apply. People have to be hired to manage the process. It could be argued that the cost of process is only worth it if it offsets the cost of your inefficiencies. Sometimes that is not the case, or there are better methods.
Learn about CMMI. Take the parts that are useful and throw the rest out. It's a source of ideas.
But don't ever asssume that just because a company is CMMI 5 means that they're any better than a CMMI 3 company.
That is unless you think you can measure a programmer strictly by lines of code and pages of documentation he developes per month.
~X~
I think it was sometime in the early '80's, but my mom didn't wake me up in time that morning.
~X~
Your post makes me laugh.
You're right. Kids learn by example. But tyrannical censorship is one example I intend not to teach.
If I were to learn by example today, I would learn from our Great Leader(tm) that mass bloodshed, killing, and violence are ok if it's done in the name of (fill in most convenient excuse here). I would also learn that's it's ok to lie and intimidate. It's okay to spend lots of money I don't have. And it's even ok to go and beat the hell out of someone because I think they could be doing a Bad Thing(tm).
All these things I intend not to teach to my kids.
I will, however, sit down and explain these things to them like a responsible parent.
I will pay attention to my kids. If I notice something is wrong, then I will take appropriate action.
Penalizing society as whole for what any single person or group finds distasteful is nonsense and contradicts the very notion of what you call "freedom".
~X~
"What's wrong with people that they think a game that allows you to beat up women, shoot cops and steal cars is fun?"
What's wrong with people who read horror novels? What's wrong with people who read war novels?
Why isn't the question: What's wrong with these kids?
Millions of kids, teenagers, and adults play violent video games, read horror novels, etc. and I have yet to read a report about "Thousands of video gamers slaughter town!".
The problem has been, and always will be, the people. Someone with homicidal tendencies or is suffering from mental imbalances will not be helped by being involved with such media as the lines between fantasy and reality are already blurred.
Normal individuals do not suffer from these problems, as is evident by the rarity of such events.
STFU, and be a real parent.
~X~
"Read about the D.C. sniper case and get back to me. That kid had no wish to kill even though he was a good shot at the range. Only after playing a video game at the insistence of the older guy, did he gain the wish to kill."
I didn't get the urge to kill until I read your comment.
~X~
In Korea only old people use Usenet.
Interesting about the termites. Did a quick look around and you're right about the methane emmisions.
I had always thought cows were the biggest emitters.
If new and undiscovered technologies are required, well I guess we have to just wait and see.
In the meantime I suppose we can hope for the best then.
~X~
I take it these articles were from peer reviewed science journals and not the adminstration influenced psuedo science that they've been shoveling around?
I was referring to your comment about cooling over Antarctica. I presumed you were operating under the false assumption that global warming meant everywhere was warming, which is not the case.
We ARE affecting the environment and it is plain ignorance to think otherwise.
It's quite easy to see this. We live in the troposphere, an area roughly about 14 Km high. This is where we live, where our weather takes place, and where almost all life is.
The volume of our troposphere is about 5.12 x 10 18 cubic meters. Current global output of CO2 is roughly 6.7 billion tons a year and rising. Scientists have estimated the natural processes of earth take out about 3.7 billion tons a year, including oceanic algae.
Well, that leaves 3 billion tons a year unaccounted for. Assuming uniform distribution throught the atmosphere, we are increasing the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere by about 2 parts per million every year.
Of course that doesn't sound like much until you take into consideration that:
1. The insulating properties of CO2
2. The effects are cumulative.
This isn't even taking into acount other natural sources of CO2 and methane (methane is much worse than CO2).
Simple math. CO2 is an insulator. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat the planet will trap. The extra energy, since it is not being radiated off the planet, has to go somewhere.
Melting the caps over the course of a hundred years or so is probably one of the better scenarios that could happen. Effects from continued warming would most likely manifest itself in changes in weather patterns and ocean currents.
For evidence, 90% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat. The heat wave last year shrunk Europes glaciers by 10%. Look at the pictures of Kilamanjaro in the 70's and compare them to the ones taken now. The effect is far more dramatic in the Andes mountains, where an entire city may have to move as their primary source of water (a glacier) is now down to only 2% of it's original size. That's just in 40 years.
Best case scenario: We are just contributing to the problem. Worst case: We are the problem.
Shall we do nothing?
I'll look at core samples and satellite data. I'll ponder why the CO2 levels are at their highest point in 160,000 years. I'll think about the consequences of global climate change.
You sit their and read your novels. And perhaps someone with a bit more foresight will step up and take action.
My personal opinion about "The Day After Tommorow"? Good special effects film, but not much else. But what do you expect out of Hollywood.
~X~
If, and that's a big if, this were true it would absolutely disprove the fact that we have free will.
Afterall, how could we have free will if events are predetermined?
~X~
My question is more like do we think that we are so very special that we effect the entire space time continuum with our very presence?
I don't think the universe is that poorly designed.
~X~
"As a species we seemed to live through that ok."
We, as a species, almost died out when the Toba volcano erupted bringing on dramatic climatic changes.
How close? Some scientists say that we were down to a few thousand in population. I wouldn't call that okay. I would call that shit luck. Alot of other animals died out.
I don't think a lot of people understand exactly what kind of energy your talking about it comes to global warming. A change of 1 degree world wide is equivalent to thousands of nuclear weapons.
Do you really want to take the chance that we aren't contributing to that kind of energy buildup? Where will that energy go? What will that energy do?
I mean seriously. We don't understand to what extent our pollution is affecting the environment, even without considering global warming.
~X~
Idiot.
Global warming does not mean the entire planet is warming. It means the average world temperatures are increasing.
Global warming will cause some areas of the world to drop in temperature while in other areas the temperature will rise.
A novel "based on solid science". I see movies "based on true stroies", does this mean I should believe them.
There is a world-wide consensus of scientist saying that global warming is happening. They still don't know the full ramification of what will happen.
Rising sea levels is the least of their concerns. It doesn't take a lot of arctic melt-water to affect ocean currents the prevent places like Northern Europe from turning into a frozen tundra.
But it's okay. We can take your approach and not worry about. After all it's better to do nothing now then take small measures of prevention.
~X~
I would remove the word "smart" before Americans.
According to the last national poll we had, about 52% of Americans are not-so-smart.
~X~
"Holy cow. It wasn't the US's fault that Kim-il-Sung invaded South Korea."
Our involvement in that area was nothing more than an excuse to follow the rules of McArthiesm. The US used communist then how they're using terrorism now.
"It wasn't the US's fault that Ho Chi Minh encouraged an insurgency against South Vietnam to prime them for a communist takeover."
And so what if he did? You use communism like it's a bad word. There's absolutely nothing wrong behind the ideals of communism. If humans were perfect, this would be the perfect government. But we have petty differences and idealogies that make the world what it is today.
Communism is a great theory, however no one yet has managed to implement it correctly.
If we had kept our noses out of their business, perhaps there would be a few hundred thousand people enjoying life today.
Vietnam, like Iraq, posed no significant threat to the US. Wars should only be fought as a last resort, and in self-defense.
"It wasn't the US's fault that Saddam invaded Iran to start the third bloodiest war of the century."
Actually we were very involved in that war. I doubt Saddam would have attacked Iran if he didn't have support of the US to back him up.
Again, you seem to gloss over the fact that the US actively helps out all kinds of bad evil people, as long as they help the US further it's agenda.
"It wasn't the US's fault that Saddam then decided to "annex" Kuwait."
Not directly. Saddam thought that the US would turn a blind eye to the whole thing, because we were such good buddies. What Saddam didn't realize was that we like our oil far more than we liked him.
"It wasn't the US's fault that Saddam starved his own people during the 1990s just for propaganda."
What has this got to do with anything? Is this a reason for invading another country? Then why aren't we in the Sudan? What about all those little places in the world where human rights abuses occur daily, like China?
If we're out to take out dictatorships, why is Cuba still around? Putin has repealed most of the democratic reforms in Russia and implemented some highly questionable practices. Why aren't we marching our armies through Moscow?
And last but not least, what about here in our own country. We have people being thown in jail and tortured without due process. The Geneva convetions were set up for a good reason. Don't expect captured American soldiers to be treated any differently.
"We are not the bad guys here. Your anger is sorely misplaced."
I believe your viewpoint is sorely misplaced. Do you honestly think that other countries don't view us as the bad guy. How about you put yourself on the receiving end of a GBU-28 bomb that just killed your family. What would you think of the "liberating US".
Good and Bad are very much in the eye of the beholder. And there are large number of people who think we are the bad guys.
"The actions we have taken in Afghanistan and Iraq were clearly authorized by the UN."
I don't know if you missed it, but the US invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN. The UN and many of our allies are pissed at us for this very reason.
"My goodness. Do you seriously look at Afghanistan and Iraq and think that we destroyed them?"
Hmm...let's see...destroyed infrastructure...wrecked buildings...destroyed lives...thousands dead...rampant insurgency...demolished economy...
No, I'd say their in pretty good shape. How about you go over and live there for a few months, then get back to me on how good they got it now.
"Iraq posed a significant threat to us."
You have yet to state solid evidence to this effect. So far, you've used words like could, would, and should. Very weak for stating this assertion such as this.
The facts are in. Despite Saddam's ambitions, he was contained. He may have wanted WMD, but had no infrastructure to make them. Nor could they have rebuilt the infrastructure any time in the
You are missing the point. The fact that this is happening AT ALL is disturbing.
"If the scientific integrity of this office has been reduced because of corporate pressures, there's very little faith left in me for any scientific agency."
This is what the current administration is hoping for.
~X~
Bush's latest budget does a pretty good job of cutting a lot of environmental spending, including funds to the EPA.
But then again, his budget cuts just about every single social program (including No Child Left in a Ditch).
However, defense and military are through the rough.
And I think it has been empirically proven that companies don't do anything voluntarily unless there is something to be made from it.
~X~
You are a troll. Or ignorant of US histroy. Or just plain ignorant.
The US has been responsible for more deaths, destruction and chaos since the 1950's than Saddam ever has.
We have WMD's. We disobey the UN fairly regularly. We destroyed two third world countries, inflicted thousands of deaths (civilian and military), and manage alienate a good protion of the world in the process.
And that was just in four years.
The world views the US as a threat, but a threat that they can't do anything about. We are arrogant, and belligerent. We're also hypocrites.
You gave a littany about the crimes of Saddam, but you overlook the crimes this country has commited and are still commiting right now.
You list looks rather paltry when viewed by a country who now wipes it's ass with the Geneva conventions.
Iraq was not a threat. By the time they could have rebuilt their country, Saddam would have died or have been replaced.
When we invaded, they had one scud missle that worked. None of their fighter craft could fly due to lack of parts. They had few tanks that still worked and most of their soldiers lacked ammunition for their guns. The infrastructure was barely holding together, electricty was flaky at best and clean drinking water was a rarity. Most of their factories were still in shambles, along with their entire economy. Two/thirds of the country was a regularly patrolled no fly zone.
Now, while this was going on, two countries saw what was going on and diverted the resources towards making a deterrent to prevent the same thing from happening to them, because they were on some Texan's hit list.
So instead of dealing with the real threats, we made up one and now after all the ash is falling we see not one but two "rogue" states with weapons that go boom.
The sad thing is, we already new they had the capability. Iraq had no such capability and the reports themselves said it would have taken a decade to get Iraq back to production capacity.
All this in the name of...what? Terrorism? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and some very thick documents detail this quite explicitly. WMD? They didn't have them. Freeing an oppressed country?
"How on earth can you claim that this was not a threat? How on earth can you claim that the world is not any safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power? "
The world will be a lot safer when countries don't go around forcing their idealogies and influence down other countrys throats.
Saddam was contained and not any real immediate threat. The bigger, more legitamate threats were ignored, mainly because they would have been a harder sell. But The rhetoric about Iran is starting to take on a familiar sound.
"Combine the above facts with the fact that we just had got our butts kicked on 9/11 by a similar threat that we had ignored"
Wrong. Dead wrong. We were not ignoring terrorism. Certain individuals were ignoring terrorism.
Anyway, I've posted before on why terrorism is the elast of our worries.
"And leaving him alone so he could write the playbook for any rouge despot who wanted to defy the US and the UN was NOT an option."
By that logic I guess we should just go and invade any country we please in order to secure ourselves.
Remember, when you go to point the finger at others make sure you don't have shit on your finger.
~X~
"When fanatical North Koreans fly airplanes into American buildings then I'll start to worry about them more. Until then I'm worrying about the religious zealots that want to see me dead."
This statement alone tells me you have bought into the terrorist paranoia.
You are far more likely to die falling down a flight of stairs than die in aterrorist attack. You are far far far more likely to die in a car wreck on your way to work than die in a terrorist attack.
Worried about terrorism are you? You're not worried about the plethora of diseases that are far more likely to kill you? You're not worried about cancer or heart disease? How about being mauled by a bear? Food poisoning? Falling off a ladder?
Do you not think about the fact that you're 8000 times more likely to die falling in your tub? What about slipping on a patch of ice?
However, terrorism is more likely to kill you than a meteor.
Terrorism has been little more than a very effectiove propaganda tool.
With that being said, logically your argument makes no sense.
NK had known stores of plutonium. These have been documented by the IAEA. It is quite likely that NK could have processed this into low grade nuclear weapons.
Now what should I be more worried about? Someone who actually has nuclear weapons and missle technology or some terrorist with a strap-on bomb?
Hmmm.....this is a tough one.
In truth, I'm worried about neither. NK has shown repeatedly that they like to bluster and terrorist...well...let's just say I'm more concerned about slipping on ice.
~X~
All right everyone! Place your bets! Who do you think the US will invade next?
:P
1. Iran
2. North Korea
3. CowboyNeal's house
Diplomacy? Too many syllables for Bush.
Anyway, I'm betting Iran. After all, wouldn't it be better to destabalize the whole region at once?
Plus Iran has oil and pipelines. NK has little to offer in the way of spoils.
No, I'm not cynical. I'm not sarcastic either.
~X~
Exactly. Lawsuits are like war. Just because you lost, doesn't necessarily mean your opponent has really won.
~X~
Perhaps I'm a bit fuzzy on this, but exactly when did companies get the rights to tell me what to do with something I bought with my own money?
I go to work everyday so I can buy myself the few nice amenities that I can afford. After I've paid for something, that should be the end. We made an agreement. I paid money for something, now you give it to me. End of story.
Once I've purchased something, that's it. The company has no right whatsoever to tell me what I can or cannot do. If I do something illegal, I should get arrested. If I take it apart and turn it into something better, good for me.
The software/music/movie companies are trying to have it both ways, and their winning because people have become apthetic to fundamental concept of owning something.
For example, the companies treat file-sharing as property theft. However, when it comes to making backup copies or reversing, it's no longer property but a liscence. The best of both worlds; they have you give them money then they can tell you what you can do. Talk about the perfect little money maker.
Does this seem normal to most people? Does the average Joe think this is okay?
Let's apply this model to other property we buy.
Could grocers slap a liscense on a bag of apples stating that if I agree to use this product, I cannot plant the seeds to make more of this product?
Can a grocer put an EULA on a tri-tip steak saying that if you agree to eat this you can only make the meat medium well and must marinate it for two hours?
Can a car manufacturer send a notice to you after you bought the car saying that by purchasing said car you agree to only travel on roads in Boston at speeds no greater than 20 mph?
Can a manufacturer forgo product testing merely by stating that they cannot be held liable for any damages caused by a defect in their product?
Then what is so fscking special about software and media that it is exempt from the normal rules of capitalism? Why do I have to pay money to give up my rights to owning a piece of property that apparently I don't own at all?
And people wonder why I advocate open source.
~X~
Sorry, I missed the parent. :P
I agree that C is definately NOT the One True Language. I don't really think there is such a thing, at least not yet.
I do think that C/C++ has pretty good syntax structure. But like most languages nowadays, it can definately be abused. The Obfuscated C code contest is a prime example.
Some characteristics of the One True Language that I think would be necessary:
1. The power of assembler.
2. The speed at least to match a compiled language.
2. Grammatical simplicity.
3. Memory management (garbage collectors and such).
4. Security.
Some of the above are mutually exclusive.
It's still a matter of what you're trying to accomplish. Choose the right tool for the task.
~X~