Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Should be interesting RE- Nato (Score 1) 375

by jozmala (#47728575) Attached to: Would Scottish Independence Mean the End of UK's Nuclear Arsenal?

YEH. I think England and NATO would definitely ignore and not come to help if any third party capable of conquering Scotland would do so.
It serves them right, let them be Russian when being British wasn't good enough for them.
On same note USA would also Ignore if Russia would send short range nukes to some independent Island in Americas.

Comment: Re:Performance seems to have plateaued (Score 1) 391

by jozmala (#47592217) Attached to: How long ago did you last assemble a computer?

I7 still has bigger last level cache and slightly higher clockspeed tp overcome the negative side of hyperthreading especially since they have pretty much removed causes of slowdown with hyperthreading and single thread by dynamic partition of resources between threads instead of static partition.

Comment: Real reason for suing peace.... (Score 1) 398

by jozmala (#47264937) Attached to: Why China Is Worried About Japan's Plutonium Stocks

Japan knew it has lost and All it could hope was make cost of victory high enough for US agree to reasonable peace terms through soviet mediation. And keep some of its empire on continent. However as soon as soviet declared war on Japan there was imminent risk of loosing Japanese Nuclear weapons program to soviet hands AND invasion and annexation of more Japanese territory by soviets who Japanese knew where willing to sacrifice lots of men in order to achieve their goals.
Nuclear bombs where not decisive but they came about time in which situation changed for Japanese from poor to terrible. And for effect of nuclear bombs there where not many targets available anymore to use them, conventional bombing had dealt with cities already.
Now here's a question IF soviets would of kept their non-aggression pact, then could Japan hold out for a year so that their Manhattan project in North Korea could of resulted some real counter bomb, especially with combined with V2 rockets Japanese got From Germans before their surrender. Lets say Japanese puts one V2 with fatman sized bomb in middle of invasion fleet, and then asks USA for status quo ante bellum, I think they could of gotten that. They could bluff that they have nuclear V2:s on submarines Waiting to revenge Nagasakin on continental USA.

Comment: Re: Motivated rejection of science (Score 1) 661

Actually from year to year trend in CO2 increase is HALF the amount of carbon ATOMS in atmosphere compared to carbon atoms mankind burns from fossil fuels. Now for natural processes. In spring trees take CO2 from atmosphere and put it in leaves in autumn those leaves fall and start decomposing slowly releasing the CO2 in it. The natural CO2 cycle is pretty much like that you have 3-4 (depends on how you wish to count them) things that exchange carbon atoms, but total carbon atoms between them stays the same, until we started pumping more atoms there. Then the oceans BOTH release and take CO2 from atmosphere and the solubility of CO2 on seawater depends on temperature which means as currents move water from cold places to hotter environment it releases CO2 and other direction it takes away CO2. Right now seas are absorbing half of our emissions but if climate change is large enough it will cause that CO2 that we have forced in to the system move back from sea to atmosphere.
So its almost closed 3-4 storage places system in which things move between those storages in large quantities, and its pretty much people who contribute over 90% of what carbon atoms to that system. But biggest proof that CO2 increase is man made is that year to year trend is half the number of atoms of carbon compared to our fossil fuel consumption.

Comment: Any direction large change is temporarily justbad. (Score 1) 627

by jozmala (#46937167) Attached to: US Climate Report Says Global Warming Impact Already Severe

The problem with change is that both nature and us are adapted to CURRENT situation and all the land human has claimed acts as barrier for nature to adapt. And some things are slow to adapt. There is order of magnitude difference between negative and positive effects partially because all things previously mentioned. Humans have buildings and roads and all kinds of infrastructure in places which are optimal for current climate. Also too much heat is inherently bad. Too much cold is inherently bad, unless you had thousands of years adaptation for it. Alaska maybe better off once adaptation has happened in 300 years or so, while continental United States is inherently worser place, PEOPLE have adapted to current optimums and live and have build things based on that, 99% are worse and 1% are better, and that 1% is only better after they have survived immediate effects of change like permafrost melting caused problems.

Subject an open plains farmland in area to once a decade rains of rainforest and top soils moves away while having same thing in rainforest is not a problem. Now you got the real picture. Its all about mismatch between situation on the ground and whats in climate. On planetary scale it probably increases deserts and makes certain cold climates more habitable EVENTUALLY, while extincting things that depend on extreme cold. Maybe Greenland becomes agricultural paradise eventually once they have build soil there. But before that has happened you would of lost huge amounts of agricultural land elsewhere. And all that ice melting would mean New York would be below sea level long before Greenland would become agcricultural land. Of course if New York would be tens of miles inland then there would be no problem, but it is there right besides sea. The time difference between gaining and loosing is big problem. You cannot move food from future to present.

So yes, Canada, Alaska and Siberia might become more habitable. On the other hand most of the world would become either worse or LOT worse.
And in WORST case climate change we would get another habitable continent, while loosing bigger area to sea level rise AND deserts BEFORE it becomes habitable.

   

Comment: Re:Minor Fluctuation? (Score 1) 560

by jozmala (#46296053) Attached to: How Well Do Our Climate Models Match Our Observations?

It matters because it means that we are heading even higher temperatures, because atmospheric concentration of CO2 doesn't go down but up. And because it takes time to heat a planet it also means that we have already emitted a higher temperature increase than that. Same models predict a 2.6-4.8 degree increase by the end of century if we continue emitting current amounts of CO2 to atmosphere. 0.3-1.7 degree if greens take over the world this year and we eliminate all emissions faster than reasonably possible. [Those are IPCC ranges for two different scenarios often used by skeptics as 0.3-4.8 range for saying scientist don't know at all.] . The high scenario goes higher than that next century even if it stops emissions late in century.

It also leads a slight increase in violence, and extreme weather events. Paradoxically it may cause part of a year somewhere in the world being much colder than it has used to by changing wind patterns, while making other places much hotter.
This is below current inter year variation caused by oceans either storing or releasing heat. But don't forget its just a battery for the energy and not affect the total accumulation of energy in the system. But its increasing the baseline which the variation occurs, so high's will be higher.
  Big impact is more extreme weather phenomenon happening more frequently, so once in a decade storms become once a year storm, once in a decade heatwaves happen every other year.

As for this year, middle east stole Scandinavian winter weather. They got snow that normally ends up here instead, and all we got was rain for Christmas.

Comment: Re:Tyranny (Score 1) 252

I'm not a lawyer, but I just read the law in question and my native language is Finnish.
That law doesn't apply between religious organisations and their congregation.
Also the law was put in a place to get rid of scammers trying to scam people their money for a "good cause", by requiring them to have registered in Finland and telling the police what they actually are going to use that money for so that they can actually verify if donations go where they promise and with random checks that they ask for the cause they told in the permission application. That is OLD law, not updated to current situation.

As what the police could potentially do is flag website as scamming site and put it on ISP blocking list and bring criminal charges that leaders of Wikipedia face if they ever travel to Europe. (Which may happen because there are opensource conferences here too). If this escalates and Wikimedia ignores them.
But more than likely someone just wants Wikimedia to act through Finnish intermediary organisation and obey the letter of law.
Now for more of a conspiracy theory option for the situation. Someone is pissed of the old law and wants the judges make precedence for new situation or lawmakers change the law, and target someone who they know is going to make enough noise for politicians to collect brownie points by fixing the law to fit for current situation.

Comment: At some point they might make games for them too. (Score 1) 295

by jozmala (#36371844) Attached to: Average Gamer Is 37 Years Old

Its just very shameful that game makers consider that games are only played by children and make only that kind of content, 1987 they made only child's games and they didn't fix that by 1996 or 1997 maybe they will fix it now.
______
Its time to kick ass and chew bubble gum. I'm all out of gum.
---------
Please state your age.

Yes sure you are.

To verify your age please answer these five simple questions.
---------
I live again.
---------

Comment: The world will end when... (Score 1) 585

by jozmala (#36207104) Attached to: The world will end ...

A) Someone launches nuclear holocaust, or bio weapon holocaust.
B) Some self replicating nanomachine makes everything on the surface a replica of its self.
C) Runaway global warming kills us all. (If reasonably bad global warming goto A)
D) Jesus comes back and Judges everyone by their actions. (For all crimes death penalty, now only question is that has someone already suffered yours.)
F) Some solar event kills all communication and reconnaissance satellites and systems. Goto A.

Comment: Re:Look at the State of Baden-Württemberg! (Score 1) 1122

by jozmala (#35657888) Attached to: Things Get Worse at Fukushima

Do you mean reactors built when PDP-10 was new kid on the computing ground, and nobody could imagine that people would own computers in home. When those reactors get hit by 9.0 magnitude earth quake and resulting tsunami, then there would be major nuclear accident with ZERO or near zero death toll (too early to tell). Compared to tens of thousands of people who would of died out of respitatory problems if its electricity production would of been done by fossil fuels instead. The total power generation capacity of Fukushima plant is about what 2.5 million people in western industrialized country requires with supporting industry. The coal power plant producing equal amount of electricity would put 25 tons of uranium to atmosphere each year. So that about 1000 tons of uranium during the already used life time of Fukushima plant coming from coal plants producing equal amount of electricity.

Yeah. There's real risk that we might get several kilos of uranium somewhere from that nuclear power plant released so we would be SO much better if we just would get 25 tons of uranium guaranteed from coal instead of risk of getting some from nuclear.

Comment: real enviromentalism (Score 1) 695

by jozmala (#35652980) Attached to: Europe Plans To Ban Petrol Cars From Cities By 2050

Good enviromentalists want to improve the productivity of our agriculture AND dedicate larger area to nature, by reducing number of farms. Good enviromentalist want to ban ALL fossil fuels including burning renewables in relatively short period, and replace them with lots of nuclear power stations using spend nuclear fuel as its own fuel by shipping it to across the continent to recycling center and back. Its all about land use, the denser mankind means far more area for nature, and nuclear is about as dense power source as you can get, and sheer volume of waste in other methods of electric production is unbelievable.
Getting rid of fossil fuels means reduced inhaling problems. Good enviromentalists want to ban tobacco and alcohol and marihuana. Both cause both enviromental problems at production, and health problems and problems to bystanders. Good enviromentalists want to increase durability of products so that far less production is required for given living standards, oh and electrical efficiency is nice bonus. Good enviromentalist want to reduce commute and shopping distance by living in dense city centers, instead of on some god forsaken far away location.

The idiot enviromentalists only considers things by emotion, if it feels good it is good and if it feels bad it is bad, no matter what the numbers tell us.

Unfortunately idiot enviromentalists dominate the numbers and media.

(null cookie; hope that's ok)

Working...