"Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
One short ton is 2000 kg.
Let us compare. US activity gives off 18-24 million short tons, volcanic activity 145-255 million short tons, of CO2 each year.
How much can we affect climate change if our entire CO2 emission is 1 percent of that of a single natural source of CO2?
Spam is email sent to many people who didn't ask for it. The content of the email doesn't matter.
They legally defined "spam" as something that does not include what they want to send, creating an exemption for themselves by changing, under the law, the widely accepted definition. (Stop co-opting the language!)
They're not telling anybody how they're doing their job. They're sending out the usual misinformation and spun-up bull about how wonderful they are and why you should vote for them.
I'm sure people will buy it because of the novelty and convenience factors, but how long is it going to take to tune out the beeping? I'm guessing about three minutes. I'll be staying FAR away from any of these cars I see on the roads. People already read the newspaper (I still can't believe that one), eat breakfast, and put on makeup while driving when they control the car's every move.
If I notice an ad, it's because it has annoyed me. I don't notice most of them. The ones that move, sit in the middle of the page, pop up over or under my browser window, or whatever other new tactic They may come up with to get my attention--I notice them, because they annoy me, and because they annoy me, I block them.
Either way I don't see the ad.
Before I started using Firefox, the ads still didn't reach me--I never noticed what it was that they were selling because I got them off my screen as soon as I saw them. If I was on a site with a dancing ad and couldn't get rid of it, I'd leave the site because I couldn't concentrate on its content.
No, they didn't, or maybe I didn't notice if they put up a sign. I was kind of oblivious back then. But it was a mom-and-pop grocery store, not a major chain.
I was 15 or 16 and a cashier in a grocery store when the new $20 bill came out. This lady gives me this crisp new bill with some parts blown up like that lens screensaver and I looked at her like, "You're kidding, right?" She said, "It's the new $20."
I never paid much attention to the news or anything, so I hadn't heard. I took it up to the office and they said it was real.
She didn't get arrested.
I did have a guy give me a $3 bill as a joke once. I can't remember who was on it (might not have been a president) but he was sticking out his tongue. I did a double take, the guy laughed and gave me real money instead.
He didn't get arrested.
Neither did the guy who handed me a piece of paper that looked like a folded dollar bill.
I wouldn't say cashiers get weird bills all the time, but there are plenty of people who like to mess with them like that. I'm not saying it's excusable, but you get suspicious after a while...
I think the best part of that link is that at the end of the story, when he's saying how he should get a stack of them and maybe he'll get some more free food, he says, "If I got the right group of people, I could probably end up in jail."
The reason they have to do something with it is that if they do nothing, it will stop being able to make the little corrections that keep it in orbit. If it falls out of orbit uncontrolled, it could land on people or property. Better to shoot it down so that we can control where it goes.
I should also clarify. She didn't look for the link on the network because the prof did not tell her there was one, and she doesn't understand computers enough to think there might be one. She found it by accident. If she'd known there would be a link somewhere else, she would have emailed him back and asked him.
It's good that you have a head for systems. Unfortunately, most people don't. There are things you don't understand and won't even if you take the time to try and learn them--people, maybe?--and other people have the same problem with things you understand instinctively.
A friend of mine works in the administration at my school, and is constantly frustrated by people assuming she knows what they know. She doesn't have time to figure out details of computer systems that you and I take for granted. A professor sent her a link in an email to a computer on the network, and left a link in network places, assuming she'd know where to look. It took her 7 months to find it--she would open her email and scroll through tons of messages to find that one, because she didn't understand the system enough to guess at where the link would be. Finally she found it on the network while looking for something else.
She has spent hours trying to figure out how to put together documents in different formats or how to move data around in Excel. The first time I really did anything in Excel it took me about three hours to import the data, organize the calculations, and plot the results--she has spent hours at a time with that program alone and still doesn't know how to do things she needs to. It's not for lack of trying, it's just that she's not built for this kind of thing.
She understands people. She does not understand computers. From your post I'm guessing there could be quite a bit about people that *you* don't understand, or are too "lazy" to figure out.
The Lafayette man said he accomplished the trickery by taking 12 "base" photographs of the house with lights on and off and then constructed a Web page that appeared to show lights going on and off when the Web visitor clicked.
"I got a chuckle out of putting a clock up in the window and having the hands of the clock display the right time (it actually started out 3 minutes slow, but then gained a minute a day, until it was 4 minutes fast, and then reset itself) -- again, all computer trickery!" Komarnitsky said on his Web site Monday.
Like when you're looking for somebody inside a building. You park next to their car and go inside to find them. If you don't leave a note on their car, they will come out the other door, get into their car without noticing yours, and leave. If you do leave a note, you'll meet up with them inside. Go figure. It's similar, but it's not the same.
I always wonder about those types of "laws"--nobody compares the number of times things go wrong at the worst possible moment to the number of times they do so at the best possible moment, or to the number of times they don't go wrong at all, or to the number of times things save your ass by going "wrong." I think it's pretty obvious that you only notice the times that really suck. I've posted thousands of messages on the internet--sometimes the page gets borked and I lose my post, but it's not exactly a given that if I spend an hour on something then Firefox is going to eat it.
Same for the Law of Go Figure, much as I like it. Seems that if I think "I should save now even though I'm not done" and then get distracted and keep writing, the post does get eaten. But I've started to look for the times that it doesn't and it seems like I do just notice the times that fit my theory.
Anyone who's ever kept a drawer in a grocery store knows that some days, you start off with almost all singles and have to get more every hour...and some days, you start off with ten singles and when you count your drawer at the end of your shift you have 90 of them, and you didn't buy more once that day.
Yarr, my bad. Got a very polite email to that effect also. I looked at the images for a while but didn't see the smaller cloud in the larger image that is the only cloud in the smaller one.
Several times in studying physics I have made the observation, "Everything you know is wrong," always to general agreement among my co-students. And this is only my second year!
I cried, watching the crash. Nothing like when I heard about Columbia (I'd say "or the Challenger" but I wasn't old enough to understand then) but yeah.
Something to add to the question--would the time dilation and the resulting never-quite-collapse have something to do with the "fuzziness" mentioned in the article?
Considering that the magnetic field causes the particles to spiral in toward the poles, if the field were to go away there would not be auroras (aurorae?) all over because only the side of the earth facing the sun would get the particles (since there'd be nothing to attract them into the atmosphere on the dark side of the earth). Of course the sun would drown out the show on the day side.
But that's only if the field vanishes or gets very weak. Chances are it will twist around, though, as the article shows. If that's the case you'll see the aurora wherever the pole (or poles--there could be several spots) happens to be at the time. Imagine if it took only a day or two for the actual flip--the lucky people on the right longitude would see it pass right over them.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know what percentage of atmospheric gases is CO2?
a .html
0.035%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere (Pie chart a little bit down the page.)
Let's say, just for argument, that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles. Then it makes up 0.07% of the earth's atmospheric gases.
This is not going to kill us.
"Carbon emissions for U.S. territories range from 9 to 12 million metric tons per year." http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg99rpt/appendix
One metric ton is 1000 kg.
"Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano
One short ton is 2000 kg.
Let us compare. US activity gives off 18-24 million short tons, volcanic activity 145-255 million short tons, of CO2 each year.
How much can we affect climate change if our entire CO2 emission is 1 percent of that of a single natural source of CO2?
Spam is email sent to many people who didn't ask for it. The content of the email doesn't matter.
They legally defined "spam" as something that does not include what they want to send, creating an exemption for themselves by changing, under the law, the widely accepted definition. (Stop co-opting the language!)
They're not telling anybody how they're doing their job. They're sending out the usual misinformation and spun-up bull about how wonderful they are and why you should vote for them.
I'm sure people will buy it because of the novelty and convenience factors, but how long is it going to take to tune out the beeping? I'm guessing about three minutes. I'll be staying FAR away from any of these cars I see on the roads. People already read the newspaper (I still can't believe that one), eat breakfast, and put on makeup while driving when they control the car's every move.
Everybody needs to see that!
If I notice an ad, it's because it has annoyed me. I don't notice most of them. The ones that move, sit in the middle of the page, pop up over or under my browser window, or whatever other new tactic They may come up with to get my attention--I notice them, because they annoy me, and because they annoy me, I block them.
Either way I don't see the ad.
Before I started using Firefox, the ads still didn't reach me--I never noticed what it was that they were selling because I got them off my screen as soon as I saw them. If I was on a site with a dancing ad and couldn't get rid of it, I'd leave the site because I couldn't concentrate on its content.
No, they didn't, or maybe I didn't notice if they put up a sign. I was kind of oblivious back then. But it was a mom-and-pop grocery store, not a major chain.
I was 15 or 16 and a cashier in a grocery store when the new $20 bill came out. This lady gives me this crisp new bill with some parts blown up like that lens screensaver and I looked at her like, "You're kidding, right?" She said, "It's the new $20."
I never paid much attention to the news or anything, so I hadn't heard. I took it up to the office and they said it was real.
She didn't get arrested.
I did have a guy give me a $3 bill as a joke once. I can't remember who was on it (might not have been a president) but he was sticking out his tongue. I did a double take, the guy laughed and gave me real money instead.
He didn't get arrested.
Neither did the guy who handed me a piece of paper that looked like a folded dollar bill.
I wouldn't say cashiers get weird bills all the time, but there are plenty of people who like to mess with them like that. I'm not saying it's excusable, but you get suspicious after a while...
I think the best part of that link is that at the end of the story, when he's saying how he should get a stack of them and maybe he'll get some more free food, he says, "If I got the right group of people, I could probably end up in jail."
The reason they have to do something with it is that if they do nothing, it will stop being able to make the little corrections that keep it in orbit. If it falls out of orbit uncontrolled, it could land on people or property. Better to shoot it down so that we can control where it goes.
I should also clarify. She didn't look for the link on the network because the prof did not tell her there was one, and she doesn't understand computers enough to think there might be one. She found it by accident. If she'd known there would be a link somewhere else, she would have emailed him back and asked him.
Sorry, I should have been more clear.
It's good that you have a head for systems. Unfortunately, most people don't. There are things you don't understand and won't even if you take the time to try and learn them--people, maybe?--and other people have the same problem with things you understand instinctively.
A friend of mine works in the administration at my school, and is constantly frustrated by people assuming she knows what they know. She doesn't have time to figure out details of computer systems that you and I take for granted. A professor sent her a link in an email to a computer on the network, and left a link in network places, assuming she'd know where to look. It took her 7 months to find it--she would open her email and scroll through tons of messages to find that one, because she didn't understand the system enough to guess at where the link would be. Finally she found it on the network while looking for something else.
She has spent hours trying to figure out how to put together documents in different formats or how to move data around in Excel. The first time I really did anything in Excel it took me about three hours to import the data, organize the calculations, and plot the results--she has spent hours at a time with that program alone and still doesn't know how to do things she needs to. It's not for lack of trying, it's just that she's not built for this kind of thing.
She understands people. She does not understand computers. From your post I'm guessing there could be quite a bit about people that *you* don't understand, or are too "lazy" to figure out.
Photometry hasn't, AFAIK, been used to detect a planet, but it can tell us about a planet once we've found it.
Speaking of personal attacks...
She's hot when she's NOT technobabbling...
Wha?
It doesn't say that, at least not now.
The Lafayette man said he accomplished the trickery by taking 12 "base" photographs of the house with lights on and off and then constructed a Web page that appeared to show lights going on and off when the Web visitor clicked.
"I got a chuckle out of putting a clock up in the window and having the hands of the clock display the right time (it actually started out 3 minutes slow, but then gained a minute a day, until it was 4 minutes fast, and then reset itself) -- again, all computer trickery!" Komarnitsky said on his Web site Monday.
I missed it, and I read semi-regularly.
You're saying they changed the article after your original comment?
RTFA--some people in Canada can see it.
It's the Law of Go Figure that rules my life.
Like when you're looking for somebody inside a building. You park next to their car and go inside to find them. If you don't leave a note on their car, they will come out the other door, get into their car without noticing yours, and leave. If you do leave a note, you'll meet up with them inside. Go figure. It's similar, but it's not the same.
I always wonder about those types of "laws"--nobody compares the number of times things go wrong at the worst possible moment to the number of times they do so at the best possible moment, or to the number of times they don't go wrong at all, or to the number of times things save your ass by going "wrong." I think it's pretty obvious that you only notice the times that really suck. I've posted thousands of messages on the internet--sometimes the page gets borked and I lose my post, but it's not exactly a given that if I spend an hour on something then Firefox is going to eat it.
Same for the Law of Go Figure, much as I like it. Seems that if I think "I should save now even though I'm not done" and then get distracted and keep writing, the post does get eaten. But I've started to look for the times that it doesn't and it seems like I do just notice the times that fit my theory.
Random things happen in groups.
Anyone who's ever kept a drawer in a grocery store knows that some days, you start off with almost all singles and have to get more every hour...and some days, you start off with ten singles and when you count your drawer at the end of your shift you have 90 of them, and you didn't buy more once that day.
Course it usually falls somewhere in the middle.
Yarr, my bad. Got a very polite email to that effect also. I looked at the images for a while but didn't see the smaller cloud in the larger image that is the only cloud in the smaller one.
Bah, details...
Several times in studying physics I have made the observation, "Everything you know is wrong," always to general agreement among my co-students. And this is only my second year!
I cried, watching the crash. Nothing like when I heard about Columbia (I'd say "or the Challenger" but I wasn't old enough to understand then) but yeah.
I'm not ashamed to admit it.
Something to add to the question--would the time dilation and the resulting never-quite-collapse have something to do with the "fuzziness" mentioned in the article?
Considering that the magnetic field causes the particles to spiral in toward the poles, if the field were to go away there would not be auroras (aurorae?) all over because only the side of the earth facing the sun would get the particles (since there'd be nothing to attract them into the atmosphere on the dark side of the earth). Of course the sun would drown out the show on the day side.
But that's only if the field vanishes or gets very weak. Chances are it will twist around, though, as the article shows. If that's the case you'll see the aurora wherever the pole (or poles--there could be several spots) happens to be at the time. Imagine if it took only a day or two for the actual flip--the lucky people on the right longitude would see it pass right over them.