Besides the good suggestions above, I am curious about this part:
I had the idea to put up a Web page stating that we 'use the following free software to save tax dollars,' as a way to help spread the word about open source software, but management calls this an 'endorsement.'
Technically, if it is true ("you" are selecting free/open source software to save tax dollars, and there is a statement someplace in the govt documents indicating that is part of the reason for the choices made) then endorsement or not, it's public information, and I do not see why stating it, if worded correctly (to properly indicate the reason such choices were made) would run afoul of anything.
The government has in the past made statements on how it has or plans on saving money. The wording of such a statement though is probably key to ensuring it does not run afoul with any other rules and laws (also assuming that such a statement is both (a) true and (b) indicated in some public government document).
But that's just my opinion - and regardless of whether it is correct, it still in no way guarantees you will keep your job after making such a statement on a govt or related site.
Unfortunately, they aren't going to lose much in the way of sales. As someone else pointed out a few replies back, their network is probably the best in the US right now...
I happily use TMo, who has coverage (or at least roaming I dont seem to pay for) in every area I need them.
And enters Ticonderoga, NY in the City/State field, one will notice that they have... ummm... something. I dont know what. There is no key on their map that indicates what blue with white lines through it means. The same goes for Rt9N and the outskirts of Port Henry.
Well, I know what blue with white lines means (even though there is a Verizon store there). It means NO coverage... even though one would suspect from the map that it means 3G.
As a matter of fact, if you zoom out, it shows the coverage as blue - which is on their map key.
Gee, that's an outright lie. I wonder how many other areas are similarly mis-marked. Ticonderoga and Port Henry dont have 3G, EDGE, or even just basic phone coverage from Verizon. We (the Star Trek Phase 2 Team) has even made some "funny" videos about it that are on YouTube (well, "we" is our sound engineer Ralph Miller mostly, with a couple of us participating in some of them).
When we called them asking if or when they'd have it (since it is marked as they do on their map), they told us they dont, wont and never plan on as there is no demand for coverage up there. Four years later, and calls as recently as this past fall, and their maps are still incorrect.
Regardless, I am sure Verizon has better coverage in many areas than TMo, but for me, TMo's coverage is all I need for where I travel, and their customer service (regardless of how it may or may not be able to be improved) is light years above Verizon's - including helping me with phone/connectivity issues with "unapproved" and "untested" phones - as well as with my "tested/approved" G1 that I bought second hand on eBay.
Technically, "back in the day" the term Internet Service Provider referred to a provider of online access for companies or individuals (ie: you could connect to the net via dial-up, ISDN, T1, T3, DSL, etc) and the term OSP referred to a company that provided online services (for themselves and/or others) other than connectivity (companies with web properties, web hosting companies, newsgroup hosting companies, email providers, etc).
Seems "ISP" is the new blanket term for everything. Various US law addresses both terms though.
And none should be. They're a potential customer buying IP addresses and hosting, not automatic weapons.
Pretty soon we're gonna be so "secure" it's gonna take an act of congress take a piss.
Yet, funnily enough, for me to get a measly 16 IPs (for 6 servers, 1 router, 3 dedicated workstations that are not permitted by law to have NAT, one more IP to a NAT router for other client stations and SOB/EOB) I have to justify each and every one of them, including possibly digging out the specific legal requirement for the 3 specialized workstations not being able to be NAT'd and identify the customer to further support why that law applies to them in support of us not being able to NAT those workstations.
Kinda odd if it is easier to obtain a big block than a measly 16 for our legitimate needs.
In addition to that, as many people seem to erroneously use the term, this makes them an OSP, and not an ISP.
That aside, virtually every ISP and OSP has an ISP they "report to" - thus this should in no way make shutting one of these company's/criminal's/site's internet access down any more difficult than in the past. Basically, unless you are a backbone owner, you're paying for a connection to the Internet via someone else and having lines installed by someone else.
In addition, I'd suspect it makes it easier to get them disconnected as they cannot claim (in the US) safe harbor if they are knowingly and/or through actions of their own; placing such botnets online on "their" network. The provisions of the law here are to protect those ISPs and OSPs who get snared in the actions of end-users (not their own malicious actions), only if and when they take appropriate actions to deal with it (those actions dependent on the infraction type... for instance, for copyright infringement, following the rules in the DMCA). In this case, they are causing two strikes to be against them from the get-go...
I'd surmise, that unless a botnet operator buys a big chunk of the Internet "backbone" that the Internet cannot survive without, that regardless of the number of IPs they own, following standard procedures against their ISP will result in the same ends as before. And I would further surmise that even if they did buy a big fat pipe, this would also make it easier to block them at peering points (which in some cases, if done drastically, would help convince their upstream provider to disconnect them even faster than the paperwork and complaints filed).
But that's just my guess... from I dunno... years in the business, including working for UUNet before they got entangled in the MCI-Worldcom debacle (you know, back in the day when besides running the 2nd largest (behind IBM) and then largest part of the backbone, they were actually the real provider for the majority of MSN's and AOL's networking and end user connections. So... as I said, it's just a guess... the Internet landscape has changed a lot from those days of antiquity... but I suspect my guess is pretty close to the true reality of the situation, thus meaning this article on threatpost is massively (and incorrectly) overstating the significance of this.
Then again, I haven't RTFA, so I am only going by a summary - even though my experience on/. has shown that's a bad idea... (but it is more fun having conversations about things that way).;-)
I hate to say it, but if the number of women who show interest in and pursue these fields in high school and college is any indication, then bolthole is correct.
There will forever be a disparity in the number of men vs the number of women in this field if there is such a small number of women who show interest in getting into it.
There is nothing stopping a woman from entering college in the CompSci and related fields, yet the disparity is quite large. Thus, if 95 of every hundred college grads is male, then the employment ratio will indicate that.
This would be a story if the college breakdown (m/f) was 50/50 and the hiring rate was 90/10 or 80/20 or even 70/30... but that isnt the case.
Microsoft promises that in an effort to do anything to increase the adoption of Silverlight and applications/plug-ins compatible with it, they will not sue Moonlight 2.0 users; but instead intend on waiting for mass adoption of Silverlight, the extinguishing of Flash and such as is normal for their "embrace" stage of their plan and the final "extend" and "extinguish" stages.
Oh, I should add, those scientists who speculate the higher numbers do so based not solely on the geological and environmental implications, but also based on how that will affect the society of today.
As a for instance, in the US, our food production capabilites will be reduced to near nothing (according to them - I havent studied these aspects in depth as an in depth study of them was not required for my work). Bread Basket
The other "for instances" are based off similar factors as the temperature drop and acid rain impacts worldwide food production in a world that is already overpopulated.
They also take into account the current populations inability (at large) to survive without modern "conveniences" since most of the population no longer has "hunter/gatherer" skills or even the knowledge of how long food remains edible once gathered via hunting or harvesting - or even the knowledge of how to plant and grow food, butcher animals, what plants are edible and so on.
Inotherwords, they expect the number to be as high because life at current levels will be unsustainable. These are not factors taken into account in most of the USGS reports, but are by other scientists at various universities and elsewhere (ie: you'd need to also read the reports by scientists in other fields based off the reports from the USGS and others in the Geological field).
So, there's the base geological information and the predicted aftermaths, and there's the aftermaths predicted by those who look at the societal impacts based off those factors (and others - such as such a situation spawning multiple wars) that cause a divergence in the die off rate expected.
Some even theorize that in an attempt to live, humans will help run other species to extinction - further hastening our own end.
Me personally, I don't know. I can only go by what the few hundred reports on the matter indicate - and even those dont agree. Some state millions to hundreds of millions will die... some state billions will die (which brings us to the 70-90% range).
So again, I honestly don't know which are correct... though the reports and studies with the higher numbers do take into account a greater number of factors (location of the US breadbasket, wars, overpopulation, natural resources and society's mass inability to feed, clothe and shelter themselves).
My work only required me to find supportable scientific reports by experts in their fields that concluded such, and to be able to disseminate that information to the rest of the team I work with.
Read Bob C's or the other's reports on the matter. I provided you over half a dozen (nearer to a dozen) people's names who have written papers on the matter, there are videos from the USGS online if you dont like to read.
Here's one theory and related events:
The largest known super volcano is the Siberian Traps in Russia, which had the largest volcanic event in the last 500 million years. The Siberian Traps eruption, which lasted over a million years has been blamed for the Permian-Triassic extinction event. This extinction event occurred 252 million years ago, when 90% of all marine life and 70% of all other life became extinct.
What most do not realize is the number of these sleeping giants that exist. When someone in the United States hears the word super volcano they think "Yellowstone", but Yellowstone isn't the only monster that exists.
Evidence shows that when super volcanoes erupt it effects our climate and the environment for many years after. The Toba eruption 74,000 years ago, and the 3 Yellowstone eruptions 2.1 million, 1.3 million and 640,000 years ago have been blamed for causing earths past ice ages.
You'll find more by reading Bob Christiansen's and team's studies and supplementing that with the new information they've found out recently and the new data from the USGS site.
I know you want an easy answer, and I am not trying to be difficult... but I'd have to read through as many as a few thousand pages worth of research documents from the USGS teams and other teams to be able to point you to a specific page and document.
Some of it, btw, was on documentaries on the Science Channel (I think... coulda been Discovery or History as well)... the particular part was the 90% upper range, which was associated with the changes to the tectonic plates and possible shift in Earth's orbit that apparently some scientists think may happen in the next VEI8 eruption. I believe those theories were based off the fact that the plates have moved quite a bit since then, the planet is already experiencing a measurable increased "wobble" and other factors.
Otherwise, most other scientists who have stated a numerical figure seem to lean towards up to 70%.
I forgot a few important researchers... you can find the rest on the numerous reports on the USGS site and various university studies. But these are big in their field... Bob Christiansen, Lisa A. Morgan, Henry Heasler and Charles Wicks.
Bob published (among other various reports) a 90+ page study on Yellowstone. Great reading. Sadly, ALMOST every thing he suspects must happen prior to a massive eruption (first few pages) he indicates are happening (about 2/3 of the way in)... the rest of the things he suspects needs to happen (more earthquake swarms, the hotspot needing to be bigger (which is what this thread is about) and continued refilling of the magma chamber) is all now known to be taking place.
DECAF is not open source, so you aren't really going to know for sure what it will do to your computer.
Haha, that'd be the perfect trojan horse. Have people with (illicit) things to hide run a program that claims to prevent them from being caught, all the while this program is just reporting them. And even if they post code, they could just post any old source code and claim it was used to generate the executable.
Your distrust in Microsoft is totally unwarran....
Oh, nevermind... I cant even type that with a straight face...;-)
Great sentiment, but not universally applicable. Iron Maiden retains control/ownership of their IP, and refuses to let the record companies prosecute for sharing, and publicly encourages sharing of their music - yet does phenomenally well without that added "support" from the record companies - the same ones who will not buy them air time or promote them.
Now Maiden may being doing so well without all of that because they maintain control of their music (including the finished product, copyrighted by their production company) and thus get a bigger cut of the pie than say Aerosmith or most other bands that dont own the finished performance on the CD. But that's just speculation on my part.
The artists have never recived payment for radio airplay. Just the songwriters. The artists pay to get airplay.
Correct sentiment, but not entirely true. Iron Maiden falls in both categories, as well as licenses their publishing rights and retains their copyrights on their published materials.
I am sure there are others... but on the face of it, you are correct for probably the vast majority of artists.
Jukebox owners do... but (if it's rented) the fees are paid by who they rent it from, or by them, depending on the contract. It's a yearly fee, so it is unlikely that a jukebox manufacturer will pay it for a sold not rented machine.
Most (larger) places that own jukeboxes though, have some sort of licensing/payment deal already set up with ASCAP.
While what you say is true, their methods against small businesses is quite evil. Yes, they serve a great purpose, and seem to do it better than the RIAA (when it comes to paying artists), but they also try to extort small businesses that they have no claim against.
An ASCAP rep tried that with me on the off chance (at the little computer shop I owned) I might be listening to the radio when a customer came in.
Now, that was besides the fact that there was no radio in the customer area and that radio play is already paid for.
I refused to pay and advised them that various members of my family were lawyers, with two specializing in such types of law, so it would cost me nothing to go to court to prove they were idiots, at which time I would sue them for attorney fees and lost work, as well as extortion and harrassment; and once again be represented without having to lay out a penny. They stopped bugging me at that point.
That made me wonder just how knowingly extortious (is that a word? It should be maybe) they were intentionally being.
Perhaps you could tell me who these alleged scientists are so I can determine where your error lies? As I said before, there has been no mass extinction on the order of 70% of Earth's species in the past 16 million years. In that same time, there have been more than 100 caldera eruptions just from the Yellowstone hotspot.
I can only recall one VEI8 eruption while mankind existed... that was Toba. Responsible for reducing the human race to a few thousand breeding pairs, in what was predicted as a 65-70% extinction of the human race (some scientists think higher) and left genetic markers that we still carry today (beyond me what they mean in that... though I have studied geology, computers and limited engineering, I have not studied genetics).
This resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution. The theory was proposed in 1998 by Stanley H. Ambrose of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
And has since been supported by other scientists. (you can confirm this statement by looking at the research links at the bottom - you will also find the % extinction number in some of those papers):
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Toba
Mankind, to my knowledge (well, based off the dates of previous eruptions) were not around during Yellowstone's VEI 8 eruptions. They predate man by quite a bit. Hundreds of thousands of years for the most recent.
Then buy a dictionary. Or simply look it up. I already provided the definition for mass extinction and extinction level event for you. I even provided a scientifically used sentence for the word "extinction" - so once again, you are correct and the dictionaries and experts are incorrect?
Go to Wikipedia, look up Yellowstone Caldera, go to the bottom (dont bother reading the article unless you want to) and click on the research papers listed in the citations.
Go to YouTube and look up "Yellowstone eruption" and watch the videos that the USGS themselves, including those who work there who are in charge of the Yellowstone project, have had to say.
Look up Robert Smith's work or Jake Lowenstern's work or Dr Hank Heasler's or Dr Henrietta Cathey or Dr Barbara Nash or their predecessors. I could name a half dozen more if you want...
Besides the tons of links you can go read from Wikipedia, here's a few more.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1869313,00.html
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/figures/fig3.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/supervolcano/under/under.html
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1205-01-
http://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/uou-yr103007.php
http://newswise.com/articles/view/534941/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_Explosivity_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_Day#Scenarios
http://www.damninteresting.com/a-big-big-hole-in-the-ground
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/
That's a tiny fraction of the ones I have read, and doesnt even begin to get into the studies on it by the USGS that I have read.
I've spent a long time reading and researching this topic for a project I am involved with for one of my jobs.
Ummm, you do realize, that with Yellowstone, that's called "just below the surface" - as in "gee, look at the pretty surface geysers, where superheated steam flies out all the time..."
So... that solution seems to be solving nothing, as Yellowstone is already the most geologically active hydrothermal/geothermal area in the country, and one of the largest in the world.
I was in error. Yellowstone is THE MOST hydrothermally/geothermally active area in the WORLD. As a matter of fact, it is more active than every such other area in the world COMBINED.
So, all of these ideas of tapping it geothermally are really good if it werent for the massive scale of this thing. We could never come close to creating a system that even equalled it's hydrothermal/geothermal system.
As Commodore Decker said in Star Trek (The Doomsday Machine):
"There was... but not anymore!!!"
Reading some reports indicate that scientists think it obliterated a chunk of the Rockies as the hotspot moved and erupted.
And contrary to popular belief, it does NOT sit under mountains right now. It sits under plateaus, open plains, and a self made lake.
Anyway, there are two possibilities... the hotspot conveniently followed a massive empty path through a pre-existing valley in the Rockies - or like many scientists believe, it MADE that path.
Look at these two maps... note the state borders when you do as they are not centered to match each other. Look at the mountains, and the big valley that sits between the western range and the south-eastern range on the Google Maps one... and match that valley to the other map that shows the path of the hotspot and it's eruptions.
The simple logic of realizing it is unlikely an unthinking thing (North American plate movement) caused a stationary hotspot to follow a pre-defined path (the valley) aside, the fact is, we've found rock dust miles and miles away embedded in the rhiolite (sp?).
So, like how Mount St Helens destroyed half of it's mountain when it recently exploded with a tiny amount of force in comparison to Yellowstone... it is very likely that the thin plateaus and dirt that sits on Yellowstone wouldnt be blown to smithereens.
Here's what happened when someone tried it anyway...
BBC News Report
Markus Haering's company had been working with the authorities in Basel to try to convert the heat in deep-seated rocks into electricity.
But the project was suspended in 2006 when drilling triggered the quakes.
Now, that was near a major fault line... so there is some difference. But the Yellowstone Caldera and such are ON a few hundred thousand cubic mile hotspot that may be connected to the Earth's core mantle. And Yellowstone is HIGHLY quake active. More so than many major fault lines. Ya know... only one thousand to two thousand (or even as high as THREE thousand) a year... and recently (like this past December/January) many times more than that.
Drilling on a restless supervolcano still seems like a bad idea - at least to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides the good suggestions above, I am curious about this part:
I had the idea to put up a Web page stating that we 'use the following free software to save tax dollars,' as a way to help spread the word about open source software, but management calls this an 'endorsement.'
Technically, if it is true ("you" are selecting free/open source software to save tax dollars, and there is a statement someplace in the govt documents indicating that is part of the reason for the choices made) then endorsement or not, it's public information, and I do not see why stating it, if worded correctly (to properly indicate the reason such choices were made) would run afoul of anything.
The government has in the past made statements on how it has or plans on saving money. The wording of such a statement though is probably key to ensuring it does not run afoul with any other rules and laws (also assuming that such a statement is both (a) true and (b) indicated in some public government document).
But that's just my opinion - and regardless of whether it is correct, it still in no way guarantees you will keep your job after making such a statement on a govt or related site.
Unfortunately, they aren't going to lose much in the way of sales. As someone else pointed out a few replies back, their network is probably the best in the US right now...
I happily use TMo, who has coverage (or at least roaming I dont seem to pay for) in every area I need them.
If one looks at their coverage map here:
Verizon
And enters Ticonderoga, NY in the City/State field, one will notice that they have... ummm... something. I dont know what. There is no key on their map that indicates what blue with white lines through it means. The same goes for Rt9N and the outskirts of Port Henry.
Well, I know what blue with white lines means (even though there is a Verizon store there). It means NO coverage... even though one would suspect from the map that it means 3G.
As a matter of fact, if you zoom out, it shows the coverage as blue - which is on their map key.
Gee, that's an outright lie. I wonder how many other areas are similarly mis-marked. Ticonderoga and Port Henry dont have 3G, EDGE, or even just basic phone coverage from Verizon. We (the Star Trek Phase 2 Team) has even made some "funny" videos about it that are on YouTube (well, "we" is our sound engineer Ralph Miller mostly, with a couple of us participating in some of them).
When we called them asking if or when they'd have it (since it is marked as they do on their map), they told us they dont, wont and never plan on as there is no demand for coverage up there. Four years later, and calls as recently as this past fall, and their maps are still incorrect.
Regardless, I am sure Verizon has better coverage in many areas than TMo, but for me, TMo's coverage is all I need for where I travel, and their customer service (regardless of how it may or may not be able to be improved) is light years above Verizon's - including helping me with phone/connectivity issues with "unapproved" and "untested" phones - as well as with my "tested/approved" G1 that I bought second hand on eBay.
Not gonna do it.
I haven't heard anything good about Verizon Wireless that made me want to do business with them in a very long time.
I've heard lots of great stuff about them lately. But I have to admit it's all been in Verizon commercials... so I guess it doesnt count.
Technically, "back in the day" the term Internet Service Provider referred to a provider of online access for companies or individuals (ie: you could connect to the net via dial-up, ISDN, T1, T3, DSL, etc) and the term OSP referred to a company that provided online services (for themselves and/or others) other than connectivity (companies with web properties, web hosting companies, newsgroup hosting companies, email providers, etc).
Seems "ISP" is the new blanket term for everything. Various US law addresses both terms though.
No further investigation is done
And none should be. They're a potential customer buying IP addresses and hosting, not automatic weapons.
Pretty soon we're gonna be so "secure" it's gonna take an act of congress take a piss.
Yet, funnily enough, for me to get a measly 16 IPs (for 6 servers, 1 router, 3 dedicated workstations that are not permitted by law to have NAT, one more IP to a NAT router for other client stations and SOB/EOB) I have to justify each and every one of them, including possibly digging out the specific legal requirement for the 3 specialized workstations not being able to be NAT'd and identify the customer to further support why that law applies to them in support of us not being able to NAT those workstations.
Kinda odd if it is easier to obtain a big block than a measly 16 for our legitimate needs.
In addition to that, as many people seem to erroneously use the term, this makes them an OSP, and not an ISP.
That aside, virtually every ISP and OSP has an ISP they "report to" - thus this should in no way make shutting one of these company's/criminal's/site's internet access down any more difficult than in the past. Basically, unless you are a backbone owner, you're paying for a connection to the Internet via someone else and having lines installed by someone else.
In addition, I'd suspect it makes it easier to get them disconnected as they cannot claim (in the US) safe harbor if they are knowingly and/or through actions of their own; placing such botnets online on "their" network. The provisions of the law here are to protect those ISPs and OSPs who get snared in the actions of end-users (not their own malicious actions), only if and when they take appropriate actions to deal with it (those actions dependent on the infraction type... for instance, for copyright infringement, following the rules in the DMCA). In this case, they are causing two strikes to be against them from the get-go...
I'd surmise, that unless a botnet operator buys a big chunk of the Internet "backbone" that the Internet cannot survive without, that regardless of the number of IPs they own, following standard procedures against their ISP will result in the same ends as before. And I would further surmise that even if they did buy a big fat pipe, this would also make it easier to block them at peering points (which in some cases, if done drastically, would help convince their upstream provider to disconnect them even faster than the paperwork and complaints filed).
But that's just my guess... from I dunno... years in the business, including working for UUNet before they got entangled in the MCI-Worldcom debacle (you know, back in the day when besides running the 2nd largest (behind IBM) and then largest part of the backbone, they were actually the real provider for the majority of MSN's and AOL's networking and end user connections. So... as I said, it's just a guess... the Internet landscape has changed a lot from those days of antiquity... but I suspect my guess is pretty close to the true reality of the situation, thus meaning this article on threatpost is massively (and incorrectly) overstating the significance of this.
Then again, I haven't RTFA, so I am only going by a summary - even though my experience on /. has shown that's a bad idea... (but it is more fun having conversations about things that way). ;-)
I hate to say it, but if the number of women who show interest in and pursue these fields in high school and college is any indication, then bolthole is correct.
There will forever be a disparity in the number of men vs the number of women in this field if there is such a small number of women who show interest in getting into it.
There is nothing stopping a woman from entering college in the CompSci and related fields, yet the disparity is quite large. Thus, if 95 of every hundred college grads is male, then the employment ratio will indicate that.
This would be a story if the college breakdown (m/f) was 50/50 and the hiring rate was 90/10 or 80/20 or even 70/30... but that isnt the case.
What I read is this:
Microsoft promises that in an effort to do anything to increase the adoption of Silverlight and applications/plug-ins compatible with it, they will not sue Moonlight 2.0 users; but instead intend on waiting for mass adoption of Silverlight, the extinguishing of Flash and such as is normal for their "embrace" stage of their plan and the final "extend" and "extinguish" stages.
Oh, I should add, those scientists who speculate the higher numbers do so based not solely on the geological and environmental implications, but also based on how that will affect the society of today.
As a for instance, in the US, our food production capabilites will be reduced to near nothing (according to them - I havent studied these aspects in depth as an in depth study of them was not required for my work). Bread Basket
The other "for instances" are based off similar factors as the temperature drop and acid rain impacts worldwide food production in a world that is already overpopulated.
They also take into account the current populations inability (at large) to survive without modern "conveniences" since most of the population no longer has "hunter/gatherer" skills or even the knowledge of how long food remains edible once gathered via hunting or harvesting - or even the knowledge of how to plant and grow food, butcher animals, what plants are edible and so on.
Inotherwords, they expect the number to be as high because life at current levels will be unsustainable. These are not factors taken into account in most of the USGS reports, but are by other scientists at various universities and elsewhere (ie: you'd need to also read the reports by scientists in other fields based off the reports from the USGS and others in the Geological field).
So, there's the base geological information and the predicted aftermaths, and there's the aftermaths predicted by those who look at the societal impacts based off those factors (and others - such as such a situation spawning multiple wars) that cause a divergence in the die off rate expected.
Some even theorize that in an attempt to live, humans will help run other species to extinction - further hastening our own end.
Me personally, I don't know. I can only go by what the few hundred reports on the matter indicate - and even those dont agree. Some state millions to hundreds of millions will die... some state billions will die (which brings us to the 70-90% range).
So again, I honestly don't know which are correct... though the reports and studies with the higher numbers do take into account a greater number of factors (location of the US breadbasket, wars, overpopulation, natural resources and society's mass inability to feed, clothe and shelter themselves).
My work only required me to find supportable scientific reports by experts in their fields that concluded such, and to be able to disseminate that information to the rest of the team I work with.
Read Bob C's or the other's reports on the matter. I provided you over half a dozen (nearer to a dozen) people's names who have written papers on the matter, there are videos from the USGS online if you dont like to read.
Here's one theory and related events:
The largest known super volcano is the Siberian Traps in Russia, which had the largest volcanic event in the last 500 million years. The Siberian Traps eruption, which lasted over a million years has been blamed for the Permian-Triassic extinction event. This extinction event occurred 252 million years ago, when 90% of all marine life and 70% of all other life became extinct.
What most do not realize is the number of these sleeping giants that exist. When someone in the United States hears the word super volcano they think "Yellowstone", but Yellowstone isn't the only monster that exists.
Evidence shows that when super volcanoes erupt it effects our climate and the environment for many years after. The Toba eruption 74,000 years ago, and the 3 Yellowstone eruptions 2.1 million, 1.3 million and 640,000 years ago have been blamed for causing earths past ice ages.
You'll find more by reading Bob Christiansen's and team's studies and supplementing that with the new information they've found out recently and the new data from the USGS site.
I know you want an easy answer, and I am not trying to be difficult... but I'd have to read through as many as a few thousand pages worth of research documents from the USGS teams and other teams to be able to point you to a specific page and document.
Some of it, btw, was on documentaries on the Science Channel (I think... coulda been Discovery or History as well)... the particular part was the 90% upper range, which was associated with the changes to the tectonic plates and possible shift in Earth's orbit that apparently some scientists think may happen in the next VEI8 eruption. I believe those theories were based off the fact that the plates have moved quite a bit since then, the planet is already experiencing a measurable increased "wobble" and other factors.
Otherwise, most other scientists who have stated a numerical figure seem to lean towards up to 70%.
Yeah... two known VEI8 eruptions, and one known VEI7 eruption. (Yellowstone)
I forgot a few important researchers... you can find the rest on the numerous reports on the USGS site and various university studies. But these are big in their field... Bob Christiansen, Lisa A. Morgan, Henry Heasler and Charles Wicks.
Bob published (among other various reports) a 90+ page study on Yellowstone. Great reading. Sadly, ALMOST every thing he suspects must happen prior to a massive eruption (first few pages) he indicates are happening (about 2/3 of the way in)... the rest of the things he suspects needs to happen (more earthquake swarms, the hotspot needing to be bigger (which is what this thread is about) and continued refilling of the magma chamber) is all now known to be taking place.
Haha, that'd be the perfect trojan horse. Have people with (illicit) things to hide run a program that claims to prevent them from being caught, all the while this program is just reporting them. And even if they post code, they could just post any old source code and claim it was used to generate the executable.
Your distrust in Microsoft is totally unwarran....
Oh, nevermind... I cant even type that with a straight face... ;-)
Great sentiment, but not universally applicable. Iron Maiden retains control/ownership of their IP, and refuses to let the record companies prosecute for sharing, and publicly encourages sharing of their music - yet does phenomenally well without that added "support" from the record companies - the same ones who will not buy them air time or promote them.
Now Maiden may being doing so well without all of that because they maintain control of their music (including the finished product, copyrighted by their production company) and thus get a bigger cut of the pie than say Aerosmith or most other bands that dont own the finished performance on the CD. But that's just speculation on my part.
The artists have never recived payment for radio airplay. Just the songwriters. The artists pay to get airplay.
Correct sentiment, but not entirely true. Iron Maiden falls in both categories, as well as licenses their publishing rights and retains their copyrights on their published materials.
I am sure there are others... but on the face of it, you are correct for probably the vast majority of artists.
Jukebox owners do... but (if it's rented) the fees are paid by who they rent it from, or by them, depending on the contract. It's a yearly fee, so it is unlikely that a jukebox manufacturer will pay it for a sold not rented machine.
Most (larger) places that own jukeboxes though, have some sort of licensing/payment deal already set up with ASCAP.
While what you say is true, their methods against small businesses is quite evil. Yes, they serve a great purpose, and seem to do it better than the RIAA (when it comes to paying artists), but they also try to extort small businesses that they have no claim against.
I too was one of them...
My earlier post on that topic
An ASCAP rep tried that with me on the off chance (at the little computer shop I owned) I might be listening to the radio when a customer came in.
Now, that was besides the fact that there was no radio in the customer area and that radio play is already paid for.
I refused to pay and advised them that various members of my family were lawyers, with two specializing in such types of law, so it would cost me nothing to go to court to prove they were idiots, at which time I would sue them for attorney fees and lost work, as well as extortion and harrassment; and once again be represented without having to lay out a penny. They stopped bugging me at that point.
That made me wonder just how knowingly extortious (is that a word? It should be maybe) they were intentionally being.
Perhaps you could tell me who these alleged scientists are so I can determine where your error lies? As I said before, there has been no mass extinction on the order of 70% of Earth's species in the past 16 million years. In that same time, there have been more than 100 caldera eruptions just from the Yellowstone hotspot.
I can only recall one VEI8 eruption while mankind existed... that was Toba. Responsible for reducing the human race to a few thousand breeding pairs, in what was predicted as a 65-70% extinction of the human race (some scientists think higher) and left genetic markers that we still carry today (beyond me what they mean in that... though I have studied geology, computers and limited engineering, I have not studied genetics).
This resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution. The theory was proposed in 1998 by Stanley H. Ambrose of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
And has since been supported by other scientists. (you can confirm this statement by looking at the research links at the bottom - you will also find the % extinction number in some of those papers):
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Toba
Mankind, to my knowledge (well, based off the dates of previous eruptions) were not around during Yellowstone's VEI 8 eruptions. They predate man by quite a bit. Hundreds of thousands of years for the most recent.
Then buy a dictionary. Or simply look it up. I already provided the definition for mass extinction and extinction level event for you. I even provided a scientifically used sentence for the word "extinction" - so once again, you are correct and the dictionaries and experts are incorrect?
I'll stop when you do. :-)
Go to Wikipedia, look up Yellowstone Caldera, go to the bottom (dont bother reading the article unless you want to) and click on the research papers listed in the citations.
Go to YouTube and look up "Yellowstone eruption" and watch the videos that the USGS themselves, including those who work there who are in charge of the Yellowstone project, have had to say.
Look up Robert Smith's work or Jake Lowenstern's work or Dr Hank Heasler's or Dr Henrietta Cathey or Dr Barbara Nash or their predecessors. I could name a half dozen more if you want...
Besides the tons of links you can go read from Wikipedia, here's a few more.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1869313,00.html
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/figures/fig3.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/supervolcano/under/under.html
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1205-01-
http://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/uou-yr103007.php
http://newswise.com/articles/view/534941/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_Explosivity_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_Day#Scenarios
http://www.damninteresting.com/a-big-big-hole-in-the-ground
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/
That's a tiny fraction of the ones I have read, and doesnt even begin to get into the studies on it by the USGS that I have read.
I've spent a long time reading and researching this topic for a project I am involved with for one of my jobs.
I previously said this in response.
Ummm, you do realize, that with Yellowstone, that's called "just below the surface" - as in "gee, look at the pretty surface geysers, where superheated steam flies out all the time..."
So... that solution seems to be solving nothing, as Yellowstone is already the most geologically active hydrothermal/geothermal area in the country, and one of the largest in the world.
I was in error. Yellowstone is THE MOST hydrothermally/geothermally active area in the WORLD. As a matter of fact, it is more active than every such other area in the world COMBINED.
So, all of these ideas of tapping it geothermally are really good if it werent for the massive scale of this thing. We could never come close to creating a system that even equalled it's hydrothermal/geothermal system.
LoL... I got the reference.
As Commodore Decker said in Star Trek (The Doomsday Machine):
"There was... but not anymore!!!"
Reading some reports indicate that scientists think it obliterated a chunk of the Rockies as the hotspot moved and erupted.
And contrary to popular belief, it does NOT sit under mountains right now. It sits under plateaus, open plains, and a self made lake.
Anyway, there are two possibilities... the hotspot conveniently followed a massive empty path through a pre-existing valley in the Rockies - or like many scientists believe, it MADE that path.
Look at these two maps... note the state borders when you do as they are not centered to match each other. Look at the mountains, and the big valley that sits between the western range and the south-eastern range on the Google Maps one... and match that valley to the other map that shows the path of the hotspot and it's eruptions.
Oddly enough, the paths match pretty darn well
Google Maps
Yellowstone Huckleberry Hotspot Path
The simple logic of realizing it is unlikely an unthinking thing (North American plate movement) caused a stationary hotspot to follow a pre-defined path (the valley) aside, the fact is, we've found rock dust miles and miles away embedded in the rhiolite (sp?).
So, like how Mount St Helens destroyed half of it's mountain when it recently exploded with a tiny amount of force in comparison to Yellowstone... it is very likely that the thin plateaus and dirt that sits on Yellowstone wouldnt be blown to smithereens.
Yes there has... on a far smaller scale, and just recently. Triggered earthquakes before they even finished the project.
Here's one report on why it's a bad idea:
How Does Geothermal Drilling Trigger Earthquakes?
Here's what happened when someone tried it anyway...
BBC News Report
Markus Haering's company had been working with the authorities in Basel to try to convert the heat in deep-seated rocks into electricity.
But the project was suspended in 2006 when drilling triggered the quakes.
Now, that was near a major fault line... so there is some difference. But the Yellowstone Caldera and such are ON a few hundred thousand cubic mile hotspot that may be connected to the Earth's core mantle. And Yellowstone is HIGHLY quake active. More so than many major fault lines. Ya know... only one thousand to two thousand (or even as high as THREE thousand) a year... and recently (like this past December/January) many times more than that.
Drilling on a restless supervolcano still seems like a bad idea - at least to me.