|
Fat Tay Choon went to the Mining Academy in Brazil, east of Satoshi's yurt, where Gavin was kidnapped by the CIA's goons and forced to pretend faking an anonymous decentralized biscuit—better than all the fish in the Pacific Ocean—but also to defray leeches intelligently with ECDSA fighting qubits for 16.8 dree12, or Phinnaeus must fling toilets towards psy‐ops, without
I'm thinking that we should rule that hyphens don't count as word-adding. Corrected - to ‐. Decapitalized Psy‐Ops.
|
|
|
|
Fair enough, but most scientific consensuses were also wrong.
In hindsight, most things are wrong. But they tend to be useful approximations: after all, Columbus reached America without the Coriolis effect even theorized. And even Columbus's own theories were incorrect. He was lucky enough to survive the trip at all, and wasn't looking for a new land. Thus, his approximations were not useful. Had he not landed in America, he & his crew would have starved to death before making it to their original destination, India, because his approximations were that far off. Sometimes a guess is just a guess, but that doesn't qualify as science in my view. Columbus was a fail. Would the world have been better off without Columbus? 11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age. Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat. And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either. What if it is a bad thing? Isn't this an unnecessary risk? Compared to what? A 30 ton metor strike would be a bad thing too, should we be pooring billions into a planetary defense system? If not, isn't that an unnecessary risk? There is no way to really know the actual risks, or even if the warming can even be avoided. Whether it's the Sun or carbon-dioxide, warming is a distant risk and there are much bigger issues worthy of destroying economies over. Why would economies need to be "destroyed" to help this planet? The US government gives tens of billions of dollars as subsidies for fossil fuel production, so that the citizens can enjoy reduced energy prices (which only lead to overconsumption). If anything, our economy would make more sense if we stopped funding destructive practices. 13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
And contradicted by many others. Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high. And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too. Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative. Unnecessary change is probably not good. You're guessing. It seems to have turned out prety good for them so far. Can you speak for them? Are you a Torontonian yourself? No, I'm not. I'm speaking as an observer from distance. However, my own winter past was pretty mild also. Hard winters kill as many people as hard summers, maybe more. Thousands of homeless freeze to death every year, but how often do you hear of some homeless man who died from lack of air conditioning? Usually a decent supply of drinking water is enough to remedy that, but nothing short of heat and warm clothing will keep the homeless vet alive in Toronto during a hard winter. I live in the area, and I can tell you that there was an abhorrent lack of snow. Ski areas were terrible, and the hardware stores were replacing ski equipment with golf clubs. Sure, change is possible, but this is hurting many businesses if anything. Toronto issues cold alerts that open up many shelters to homeless people, so it is rare to hear of a homeless person dieing. During the heat wave of 2011, however, the Great Lakes warmed considerably. This is hypothesized to have contributed to the deadly and destructive tornado. Wow, there's a whole lot of claims there. got any support for those? The idea that the entire land surface of the Earth will turn to deserts is rediculous, it's going to rain somewhere no matter how hot it gets.
Yes in fact. - More total area of Earth is near the equator than near the poles. This is because the Earth is round.
- This also applies for land area.
The first is true, the second is not. http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htmJust Russia & Canada together are three times the size of the US. This doesn't consider the size of Greenland, which is itself larger than Texas & Alaska combined. Then there is, of course, Alaska & Iceland. The Tropics, that will not benefit, include most of Africa and South America, two very large continents, and northern Australia. The Middle Latitudes, that will benefit include the largest continent in the world Eurasia, and third largest North America, as well as southern Australia. The Polar regions include Antarctica, and will not benefit significantly if at all. I would say that this is roughly equal, and any net benefits are not worth disrupting the status quo. - The part of Canada that will melt does not have soils suitable for agriculture anyways. Because of the acidic Boreal forest, it likely won't develop the necessary soil in a reasonable timeframe either.
While this is true, it misses the main point. It's not about how much of the permafrost zone might actually be able to grow something later, it's about the increases in the growing seasons of portions of Canada that already can grow something. Sure, this is a net benefit of warming. - Siberia is already pretty much a desert. If it melts, it probably won't become arable land.
Siberia is a wide area, the majority of which is actually a frozen swamp, not desert. A frozen swamp will melt out to none more than a thawed swamp, which is still a swamp. Slowly, and the processes involved are almost certainly unrelated to carbon0dioxide concentrations in the atmostphere. Even if unrelated, if we're losing land to desert, shifting the usable land is hardly useful. Wouldn't you agree that there is more untainted data on this side than the other?
Perhaps, but why should I trust either side? Both has shown a willingness to spread falsehoods & propaganda to achieve a political end. What should we do, if the outcomes are uncertian? Should we "do something even if it's wrong"? What if we're wrong & the something destroys the fragile economy at present? Is it okay that millions would starve to death in the next couple decades because we meant well? What do you suggest we do instead? "Nothing" isn't very good for the future of mankind either. |
|
|
|
They restarted the server.  Ah. Was this planned somewhere? Seems like maintenance should be scheduled such that people don't lose posts. |
|
|
|
|
I noticed from the recent posts roll that there were ~8 minutes of downtime for the forum. During this time, I experienced a "database error". Did anyone else notice this? What was the cause?
|
|
|
|
Fat Tay Choon went to the Mining Academy in Brazil, east of Satoshi's yurt, where Gavin was kidnapped by the CIA's goons and forced to pretend faking an anonymous decentralized biscuit—better than all the fish in the Pacific Ocean—but also to defray leeches intelligently with ECDSA fighting qubits for 16.8 Note: no periods
What was that? |
|
|
|
Znort's annoying habit of using far too many linebreaks. What's the story behind that, anyways?
The decades-old way that Internet messages have been broken into paragraphs? The days before word-wrapping, heh. My email client still attaches newlines automatically, and it's 2012. Makes editing drafts a pain... |
|
|
|
|
Fat Tay Choon went to the Mining Academy in Brazil, east of Satoshi's yurt, where Gavin was kidnapped by the CIA's goons and forced to pretend faking an anonymous decentralized biscuit—better than all the fish in the Pacific Ocean—but also to defray leeches intelligently
Corrected leehes to leeches.
|
|
|
|
|
Fat Tay Choon went to the Mining Academy in Brazil, east of Satoshi's yurt, where Gavin was kidnapped by the CIA's goons and forced to pretend faking an anonymous decentralized biscuit—better than all the fish in the Pacific Ocean—but also to defray
|
|
|
|
I assume that launching large amounts of CFCs will do the trick. These aren't produced anywhere anymore.
Water vapour is easier to produce, but has a shorter lifetime. Carbon dioxide has a long lifetime, but is relatively weak.
CFCs deplete Ozone. You'd raise skin cancer rates, but not significantly increase temperature. They're also a very potent greenhouse gas in the short term. |
|
|
|
|
Fat Tay Choon went to the Mining Academy in Brazil, east of Satoshi's yurt, where Gavin was kidnapped by the CIA's goons and forced to pretend faking an anonymous decentralized biscuit—better than all the fish in the Pacific Ocean—but also...
Corrected -- to —.
|
|
|
|
2 "It's the sun" In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions
Again, they produce no evidence for this statement, and it's provablely false. Long distance IR measurements of Mars by NASA says that the surface of Mars has warmed over the past 30 years or so also. Did we do that too? Mars's climate is likely to vary greatly when compared to other planets, especially Earth. Dust storms seem to cool down surface temperature, but increase upper atmosphere temperature. While Mars's surface temperature decreased in 2001 during a planet-wide dust storm, the upper atmosphere heated by 30 °C. This "dust storm" effect indicates that some unknown Martian cycles are likely present that dwarf solar activity in Martian climate change. Other planets have displayed relatively similar results, further implying that very small variations in solar output appears to have an outsized effect upon such things across the 'water band' of the solar system. Few solar system planets have a greenhouse similar to Earth. The ones that do tend to vary less in temperature naturally (see: Venus). That has zero to do with the point. The original point was that "it's the sun". Planets like Venus and Earth respond relatively little to solar forcing, while other planets respond greatly. 3 "It's not bad" Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
"The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been very few benefits projected at all. "
Yes, the impact of climate change may be catastrophic, but very few scientists consider the effects of climate change on the economy. It's simply not their field. So the reaosn that there hav been very few benefits projected is actual economists consider predicting the effects of warming over a century to be futile, so very little has been published on the matter at all. Barring anything else, sea level rise is likely a major economic factor. If New York becomes submerged, economic damage could result. Which could be outsized by the gains in valuable land mass in Canada. Lets not make such conjectures, okay? If there is economic gain possible, maybe we should accelerate global warming. I'm sure that is an excellent idea. I question whether or not you even could accelerate it. Again, if global warming is due to carbon-dioxide from long sequestered non-renewable fuels, then the problem is going to resolve itself soon after the global Hubbert's Peak. I assume that launching large amounts of CFCs will do the trick. These aren't produced anywhere anymore. Water vapour is easier to produce, but has a shorter lifetime. Carbon dioxide has a long lifetime, but is relatively weak. Furthermore, the idea that a scientific consensus if true represents reality is historically false.
Historically, most heretics were wrong. Fair enough, but most scientific consensuses were also wrong. In hindsight, most things are wrong. But they tend to be useful approximations: after all, Columbus reached America without the Coriolis effect even theorized. 11 "CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.
CO2 didn't initiate this trend either, since records show that the warming trend began well before the Industrial Age. Yep, and this time the CO2 will likely amplify the warming again. History tends to repeat. And that isn't likely to be a bad thing this time either. What if it is a bad thing? Isn't this an unnecessary risk? 12 "Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.
The vast majority of the climate papers in the 1950's predicted cooling, which wasn't a bad bet since even at the time the global average was over teh long term mean. The 1950's were characterized by cooling, so the climate papers were not incorrect.  And this alters my point, how exactly? I'm making my own point. Climate science has been accurate for a long time. There's no reason it should become inaccurate now. It's entirely possible to predict a trend without having a complete understanding of why the trend continues. Point ceded. 13 "Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence.
And contradicted by many others. Isn't everything? Ignoring feedback, the current temperature is already very high. And the residents of Toronto have to thank global warming for their mild winters these past couple years, too. Higher temps are not necessarily a net negative. Unnecessary change is probably not good. You're guessing. It seems to have turned out prety good for them so far. Can you speak for them? Are you a Torontonian yourself? 14 "We're heading into an ice age" Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years.
The Little Ice Age, while not technically a true ice age, dropped the average temps by half a C in under that time frame. Tens of thousands died of starvation directly, or due to complications of desiese related to malnourishment as a direct result of the fall in agricultural productivity during this time frame. Due to the increase of that much in the past 40 years, I think it's safe to say another Little Ice Age is not a problem. In fact, because of 1.5 K warming in the past 200 years, we could survive three Little Ice Ages. That would be enjoyable to many of the Pacific islands that are sinking. I've little concern for a few small island nations that are losing dry land. Much more inhabitable land is being opened up than is being lost. Cities are just collections of people. Move. Venice is not going to sink into the ocean like a modern Atlantis, it's still going to take a century or more before the sea level rises more than a meter. If your city cannot adapt with that kind of advance notice, it doesn't deserve to exist. "Much more" is debatable. There is relatively little land that will become useful in Canada (compared to, say, the areas to be desertified in Asia and Africa), no cold land in the Southern Hemisphere, and not much Siberian land that won't just melt into a desert. Wow, there's a whole lot of claims there. got any support for those? The idea that the entire land surface of the Earth will turn to deserts is rediculous, it's going to rain somewhere no matter how hot it gets. Yes in fact. - More total area of Earth is near the equator than near the poles. This is because the Earth is round.
- This also applies for land area.
- No cold land is usable in the Southern Hemisphere. The only lands that exist are: 1) a huge mountain range and 2) a huge ice sheet (that probably isn't going away anytime soon).
- The part of Canada that will melt does not have soils suitable for agriculture anyways. Because of the acidic Boreal forest, it likely won't develop the necessary soil in a reasonable timeframe either.
- Siberia is already pretty much a desert. If it melts, it probably won't become arable land.
- The Gobi desert is growing. Many other deserts are likely to do the same.
17 "Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy" A number of investigations have cleared scientists of any wrongdoing in the media-hyped email incident.
Some scientists, others have lost their jobs. I'd just point out that although more scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming than scientists who don't, just as much data has been fabricated on both sides. Okay, but it is the data on your side of the argument that is being listened too, so it matters that some of it is falsified. It shouldn't really surprise anyone that counter-data is falsified by oil companies. If 10% of data is falsified, what about the 90% that isn't? What about it? How do I know that it isn't tainted too? Wouldn't you agree that there is more untainted data on this side than the other? |
|
|
|
I think any badder asses would try to communicate with us  The blog that hosts that picture, after a browse, does not seem very credible. |
|
|
|
|
You're missing one word each, so I took the liberty of adding two words. Please update your posts to include "in" and "the" respectively.
Fat Tay Choon went to the Mining Academy in Brazil, east of Satoshi's yurt, where Gavin was kidnapped by the CIA's goons and forced to pretend faking an anonymous decentralized biscuit—better than all the fish in the Pacific...
|
|
|
|
I've thought about the most efficient automobile designs, and found this concept interesting. This seems like the apex of efficiency if it can be safely built and put into production. |
|
|
|
Indeed, declaring, say, dolphins sentient would open a huge can of worms. But I think that the can is worth opening. We're at most 100 years away from developing near-light speed travel, and then we can explore the entire arm in 5000 years (0.5% of a million years). The chances that a civilization is a million years ahead yet hasn't discovered us is less than minuscule. The chances that a civilization is between 0 and 5000 years ahead of us is similarly small, this time because it's a relatively short timeframe.
At least, we aren't going to be discovering badder (note, my grammatical sense tells me to use "worse" here. I'm not sure why baddest and badder are the only words that can describe asses, because worse and worst clearly don't work.) asses in the next century or two. That is pretty much guaranteed.
What makes you think those badder asses haven't already discovered us, and are currently monitoring our progress? All you have done, here, is argue the case that UFOs are true alien visitors. I think any badder asses would try to communicate with us (or enslave us, depending on their society), not monitor our progress. If anyone is monitoring our progress, it's the computer simulation we might be in. Honestly, if their goal is to monitor us, UFOs are not a good method. They're easily detectable, and there are plenty of other methods. They could simply have put many satellites in orbit, undetected. |
|
|
|
So the question then is: do you think federal reserve notes (as an example because our European equivalent is just the same) are fungible? Because if Bitcoins aren't the same is true for the bills in your wallet. Even more so as they are split in portions which are predetermined by a central issuer and numbered to be uniquely identifiable.
I think the answer here is that it is a matter of degrees. How fungible is something?
Sorry, but here you are flat out wrong. Greenbacks or euros are *far* more fungible than bitcoin. The reason is simple: if I give you a euro, only two persons ever know about that: you and me. If I send you a bitcoin, the whole word is immediately informed that the transaction took place, and the transaction is for ever recorded in the great immutable, shared bitcoin ledger in the cloud, which is available to all for all times for consultation. I asked for change once. Someone gave me change, and I thanked him for his generosity. I tried to spend the money. The cashier said it was counterfeit. In practice, greenbacks or euros are just as non-fungible as BTC. |
|
|
|
This account looks suspicious. Registered a year ago, then in April tried to sell GPUs and ask for loans. In his GPU thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=77848. In that thread " godfreyandthandi" vouches for him. He vouched for him on april 23th and became inactive on april 24th. Personally I would ask for personal info (bad pun not intended), and this loan is too much risk for me. Yeah, smells like a hacked account. One way to make sure is to run a dictionary attack (hackers don't usually change the passwords). |
|
|
|
Here's an interesting thought experiment.
What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?
Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet) Uh-oh. That's opening up many cans of worms. To be honest, this situation isn't very practical. Considering we're the ones doing the discovering (not the group of 5 or 6 races), we could probably take all of them down easily. I'm pretty sure mankind is the most advanced civilization in the local arm at least, if not the entire Milky Way galaxy.
I'd be willing to bet that: mankind will not discover a more advanced civilization for the shorter of your remaining lifetime and my remaining lifetime.
On a planetary scale, we're babies. On a galactic scale, we don't rate even a footnote. It took our planet billions of years to form and develop life. A planet formed even just a million years sooner would produce a race that is currently far, far more advanced than we. To assume we are the baddest asses on the block would be horribly naive. We're at most 100 years away from developing near-light speed travel, and then we can explore the entire arm in 5000 years (0.5% of a million years). The chances that a civilization is a million years ahead yet hasn't discovered us is less than minuscule. The chances that a civilization is between 0 and 5000 years ahead of us is similarly small, this time because it's a relatively short timeframe. At least, we aren't going to be discovering badder (note, my grammatical sense tells me to use "worse" here. I'm not sure why baddest and badder are the only words that can describe asses, because worse and worst clearly don't work.) asses in the next century or two. That is pretty much guaranteed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
