What he is doing is improving the lives of people like him, students that want to learn things that aren't taught where he lives.

Instead of speculating all day long he is actually trying to start a business. He already turned 1k to 100k.

What is being created here is another platform for online tutoring with chat, video and a shared whiteboard. I haven't used the site but I might.

Using the site you could get tutored by someone who graduated with honors for Computer science or someone who has worked years in animation etc.

That being said he could have held and 3 possible scenarios would happen. 1. Bitcoin price would have a temporary drop 2. Bitcoin price could remain the same for up to 3 years. 3. Bitcoin price could rise

So given that he had enough money to start his business I think he chose correctly. And who is to say he doesn't still have a few BTC stashed away?

You can most certainly connect multiple drives to reach the capacity of 1 petabyte.

Since we're dealing with hardware we'll use the misleading 1000 TB = 1 PB instead of 1024 which is used for software.

Depending on brand hard drives can be bought for in the range of 40-70 dollars per TB

So it follows that you'd pay between $40,000 and $70,000.

For one bitcoin? I would go a week with no food.

For two I would bend unnaturally and suck my own dick.

For 4? I'd probably drink my own piss.

For 8? I would watch all the twilight movies, twice.

This guy should probably be in the military for precise missions only and get paid really well.

this is a caesar cypher with a shift of two

Only it's not!

@Este Nuno

is the hint about 12345?

Is the whitepaper about to go out?

Bitcoin has been created through cryptography? Let's pass along encrypted messages and decrypt them. I'll start with something simple.
Next one has to break it and in turn use an incrementally more complicated method of encryption.
Hint: Beware the ides of march.

Let's start at the beginning:
uijt jt b dbftbs dzqifs xjui b tijgu pg pof

The increase in cloud cover is linear while the decrease in ice extent is exponential.

If cloud cover properly compensated this thread wouldn't exist.

bump!

The warming of the world is uneven. The arctic warms faster. Less ice in the summer means more heat gets into the water causing more ice to melt. This positive feedback loop is the cause of the image.

This is the whole reason for this thread! When there is no multi-year ice in the arctic this whole process will be much faster and this is what we're heading into right now.

Charlie you wouldn't know reality from oil company and Koch brother propaganda if it bit you in the ass.

You offer no proof and your post is bordering on being spam.

Yes, six graders know more about this planet than you do, but you don't need to drive the point home by posting drivel.

Antarctica is both thinning and thickening, in different parts. East and West. Glaciers can speed up on their way to the sea and I wonder whether any land may start showing. However the extent as of yet is at levels that are record high, although record high, unlike the arctic is really close to the average. So it can lose volume with speeding glaciers, but the extent hasn't changed much.

The arctic is a completely different story.



http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=2889

The west antarctic sheet is melting which will cause an increase in the sea level over a big period of time.

http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=3024

If there is -4 Million sq km of ice in the arctic the +1 Million sq km in the antarctic doesn't balance things at all.

The net change in sea ice extent is hugely negative. Therefore the first reason is nonsense. Here is an analogy, the TV in the living room is shrinking by 10 inches. You state correctly that we don't care how thick the TV is to which I say I didn't mention thickness in the first place. I really like to eat herring but I'm not that easily distracted.

So, ice cover on the sea surface can be offset by...clouds created by (insert unknown process) that prevents the sunlight from hitting the surface to the same extent as it being completely covered in ice. (I'm interested if you have proof)

The extension of forests right in the middle of the arctic ocean is at best, a bad joke. Is your point that there are going to be trees growing on the open saltwater in the middle of the ocean in the summer or at any time?


What I want to focus on is not CO2 levels, or methane levels, but a change in the temperature of the arctic caused by the change of ice extent in the summer. The winter in the arctic is also irrelevant as there isn't as much sun there in the winter.

Algae sucking CO2 there can be nearly irrelevant and has, up to now been irrelevant as the composition of the atmosphere is still moving towards more CO2 despite all the melting ice and release of iron into the oceans.

Increased precipitation in Antarctica could lock a lot of water on the colder areas, off-setting a lot of the sea level rise that is due to thermal expansion. One third of it according to the IPCC, although the IPCC is always overly conservative.

The inside of antarctica can be viewed as a bank where we loan from it future sea level rise, but if in a 200 or 300 years we haven't paid our debt (scrubbed out CO2 from the atmosphere) we'll pay the full price. However I'm sure we'll have a good job by then so we'll surely be able to pay it back. (I wonder how many college students made that mistake) (Even now there are many technologies under development that could scrub out CO2 from the atmosphere, of course the undertaking will be massive and very slow).

Still, while parts of Antarctica are thickening others are thinning and a lot of glaciers move into the sea. Changes, even those that occur below the freezing point affect the movement speed of glaciers. The ice that makes up the glaciers and ice-sheets is younger than the glaciers or the ice-sheets themselves.

I'm focusing on the arctic ice because that is going to happen soon. The difference in temperature if the ice melts will fall drastically changing climate patterns, rainfall, wind, currents.

Antarctica is a different story completely, I don't know much about it, but recently (a few weeks ago) the amundsen Glacier in Antarctica reached it's point of no return surprising a lot of people as that wasn't supposed to happen for decades.

Specifically, the ice extent has been dropping a lot during the last summers. It is noteworthy that it takes a lot of energy loss, and a lot of energy to turn ice to water and vice versa. About as much as three quarters of the way to boiling water. When something like this happens it takes a lot for the water to go from one state to the other.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

In the summers the arctic receives more sunlight as it is facing the sun, therefore if there is no ice in the summer (or even less ice in the summer) much more heat is absorbed rather than reflected back to space. That is one reason (among others) why the arctic has heated up at an incredible rate, as compared to the rest of the planet.

I'm not a professional in this area however I'm fascinated that such a big change is going to happen so soon. An ice free arctic sea in the summer. We're talking about millions of square kilometers turned from totally reflective to just about the opposite. I'm also a little bit weary of the change as it is a mystery what it will bring.


The range of possibilities here is huge, and possibly the arctic won't be ice free (in the summer) for decades to come, however a simple look at the trends points to a different picture.

Whether the arctic is mostly ice free in 2016, 2020 or 2050, the simple fact that it is lower, by more than 3 million square kilometers, in the summer, when it matters most is a really big deal.

The arctic receives almost all of it's sunlight in the summer, and ice reflects back the heat into space, as opposed to open water.

Go to this site: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e   and put in Septermber 10, 2012, then overlay the historical average data for 1980s, 1990s, 2000s

Years like that are likely to be the norm in the future.

What will happen when, in the short years after 2014 the arctic will be ice free in the summer?

This could be it ladies and gentleman, the world could be a lot different if by chance there are any unintended consequences. We're not climatologists here, but we can all have our educated guesses.

My view:

Worst Case scenario: Hurricanes hit the US more often causing a lot of death, certain areas get less rain than they used to, dry out and burn as a result, perhaps even a new dustbowl. Certain areas get much more rain and snow then before disrupting a significant amount of people's lives. The melting causes the release of large amounts of methane accelerating climate change. Greenland ice melts faster than predicted next to an ice free arctic (in the summer) causing rapid sea level rise the likes of which was not predicted in the current models.

Realistic Scenario: ... Climate changes but people cannot pinpoint the extra disasters on climate change and simply blame it on bad luck. The media has it's frenzy over the summer ice situation but as the winter starts and the ice begins to form again on the arctic people do not understand the difference between summer and winter in the north. Petroleum interests have to be heeded by politicians who have been bought out and everything is swept under the rug. Most people are distracted, oblivious to the change and how it might affect everyone until it does.

Best Case scenario: Arctic is free of ice in the summer, an event that causes the extinction of several animals. The change in climate is mild but noticeable. Globally there is consensus to fight the problem, many radical solutions are deployed at once, among the many solutions being feeding extra iron into the sea, like the iron that was leaked due to the melting of arctic ice that had never melted before in order for plancton to capture excess Co2.

In the years to follow the arctic gets a little more ice and eventually has ice even in the summer. It's a changed world, with more farmland available to the north. Many people have moved north and higher up. We've adapted for the change and we're slowly going to reverse it.

Psychiatrists give out pharmaceuticals. You should more accurately say, go see a therapist. I have.

Anyway, what would a psychiatrist do? Give me chemical castration drugs?

Also, you need to see an English teacher to correct your post. Capitalize your sentences and check your spelling.

Topic is locked.


Thank you all for your input!

This is madness.

Valar Morghulis guy from GOT.

Rohnearner, you're wrong, I'm not doing anything illegal. Being a straight male, I though it would be more widespread, maybe her time of the month is my time of the month as well. k
As for people's preferences, they are what gender they are, there are people who like the same gender, the other gender, both genders and many other configurations, they are all normal
a person's gender and preferences in sex are matters separate from public life, while I'm not an expert, I can say, with confidence that I've met people good and bad, at nearly equal rates
who identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbians and a really nice lady that was transitioning.

To the rest I want to ask, wouldn't you have sex with a girl on her period? Wouldn't you have sex with a girl for whom it's the first time? If so, I don't think I need to point out the bloody obvious.
Like it or not, sex and blood are linked to a certain degree, in both literature and anatomy. There is a reason for that. Of course, when it comes to sex, each to his/her own. If someone likes inflatable
dolls, or playing with inflatables that doesn't mean they are going to end up behind bars at some point, and the same goes for me.

I'll be watching it soon and post back to this thread. Right after the latest GOT episode.