What is Digg?62 Comments
- thebassmaster, on 01/25/2008, -7/+1826 diggs, no comments, front page. i dugg the story because it's quite interesting, but there's definitely something fishy about this new algorithm
- TheKrillr, on 01/25/2008, -3/+10Certainly interesting. We typically view geological ages as being something that changes on such a grand scale that no one species or event can change it, however it seems we have. Really speaks to the power of a single species.
- Sornos, on 01/25/2008, -0/+5Actually, no. Geological ages are not arbitrary labels. Geological ages are distinct changes in rock strata.
- i3eeker, on 01/25/2008, -0/+4This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
The age of Aquarius
Aquarius! Aquarius! - domokunt, on 01/25/2008, -0/+3Yes I call it the geological age of concrete. in thousands of years geologists will wonder where all this "concrete" came from, and why there is so much of it.
- blast_flame, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2Pretty good. Although I am getting slightly bored of it, we should expand out into the galaxy and rape it instead.
- vsrkm, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2The group says there is enough evidence around to suggest this will be the case. Ocean acidification, if it continues, could bring an end to corals which will change the nature of ocean rocks. Humans activities have triggered huge amounts of erosion, generating a new layer of sediment.
- r55741, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2Annonimothropocene
we do not forgive - charlietuna, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3You'll be dugg down because you didn't mention Ron Paul or Obama. Too bad, only intelligent post here.
- HomerS1, on 01/25/2008, -0/+2Yeah, Ill never forgive those cyanobacteria for forever polluting the atmosphere with one of the most corrosive elements in the known universe.... oxygen.
- ticklemeelmo, on 01/25/2008, -2/+4Interesting article..
As we continue to effect the Earth in negative ways (not to say we have /0/ positive impact in one way or another), this article really does put things into perspective and make you think! - MrSlumberjack, on 01/25/2008, -1/+3Keep your mouth shut unless you know the science.
- HomerS1, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2'negative ways' is a subjective term. One could argue that cyanobacteria affected the Earth in a negative way.
- hiikeeba, on 01/25/2008, -2/+3Actually, I believe the answer is yes, since man invented the other geologic ages, why can't he arbitrarily stop one and start another. Polar bears didn't come up with the concept of geologic ages. They aren't encoded in the spin of electrons, or found in tree rings. Man developed the idea of geologic ages, and we can pretty much define them how we want.
- MrSlumberjack, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1I think a condition of the new algorithm is: if something gets a certain amount of diggs in a certain (and small) amount of time, it will make it to the front page.
- 17to85, on 01/25/2008, -2/+3If they start calling it a new geological age it's a crock of *****. The geological time scale is beyond the comprehension of most people, to think that you can look at an insignificant amount of time like this and call it the start of a new age is preposterous.
- darthom, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1No.
- noahhoward, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2I'm not sure why they bother to mention age. They finish the article by saying no, it's not an age, it's merely an epoch.
- laterallateral, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1I see you're enjoying a computer, there... How good for you!
- domokunt, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2Not so much raping as paving over it.
- duggreen, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1you definitely gotta point there.
- slvrbullet87, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Because they wont have concrete in the future? no building will need a foundation?
- Myztry, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2I wouldn't say we are in a new geological age yet. The rise of humanity is more like the catastrophic event that can change a planet forever. But our period of influence is tiny by Earth's scale and in the event of our extinction, the Earth would recover itself surprising quickly.
We talk of age's in the Millions of years, but mighty civilizations have disappeared under nature's replenishment in mere hundreds of years. All but indistinguishable from the surrounding environment. It's not like we have caused mountains to rise or continents to shift. We are not so as awe inspiring as nature itself. - wil2200, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1we didn't create *****, we just royally ***** up what was there for a couple million years
i swear, humanity is probably the worst pest out there and it seems no matter what, we are bent on killing and destroying everyone and everything - duggreen, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Newscientist is a very cool weekly from the UK. It's aimed mostly at grad students in the sciences, but it's a real fun read and I'd highly recommend a subscriptiion, if you can afford it. I had one for about twenty years, but they finally priced me out. NS is less conservative than SA or stuff like that, so there are some edgy articles. Those are no problem for me because my Feynmann Bogosity Meter is very finely tuned ;)
- WallnutBoy, on 01/25/2008, -5/+6You're a *****.
- inactive, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Geologic time is measured by distinct changes in earth, which can be observed by studying the stratigraphy. An "age" is fourth order, so it would take 2 or more ages to make an epoch. Same for epoch to period to era.
Although your logic is correct when looking back at history and the stratigraphy, hiikeeba is correct in stating that changes to earth determine geologic ages, not the strata or geological record. - wameneses, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1The planet will survive, and humanity go away to stars (Could be?)
- mOdQuArK, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1They have a list of criteria which seems to work for other geologic ages. Why shouldn't they apply it to the current time period?
- inactive, on 01/25/2008, -3/+4geological age = layer o'dirt.
Each layer of dirt represents a specific time frame with specific conditions. Even if it were true (I think it is), doesn't mean much. If we had covered the earth with flowers, there would have also been a new geological age.
Also, like everybody else talking about the human impact on the entire planet, they have no data to base their findings on. They can tell that things have changed in the last 30-40-100 years, but they have no way to measure how much of it was caused by humans and how much of it is natural.
THERE IS NO MEASURE OF THE HUMAN IMPACT ON CLIMATE, ON ECOSYSTEMS OR ON THE PLANET IN GENERAL.
That's the whole problem in the debate and what allows both sides to call each other liars. The acidification of oceans could be caused by humans. But we just don't know that. It could be natural, it could be both with a human impact of 0.000001% change or it could be entirely caused by humans. We just plain don't know because we have no way to measure that for now. The only thing true that can be said is that the earth is effectively entering a new geological age which may or may not be caused entirely or partly by humans.
And please don't think I'm some global warming denier, I very much agree with the general concensus, except I call it what it is: a hypothesis. If I ever get facts and an actual measure of the human impact, I'll call it science. - duggreen, on 01/26/2008, -1/+2Wow, you didn't understand my post either? Where are the smart folks?
- duggreen, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2I was going to write a comeback, but I realized it's unethical to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
- duggreen, on 01/25/2008, -1/+2RMFP
- charlietuna, on 01/25/2008, -0/+1Well whatever the reputation of NS (which I read semi-regularly), this article brought out the Rush Limboughs and Anne Coulters of digg.
- Attilitus, on 01/26/2008, -0/+1This has nothing to do with whether global warming is wrong, or if humans are destroying the environment. The only question here is whether or not our influence will cause a line to appear in slices of rocks a million years from now. It has nothing to do with destroying the environment, ect.
I.E. If these guys decide to say "Yes Humanity has caused a new geological age" that does not mean "OMG WE ARE PESTS!" - hempick, on 01/25/2008, -2/+2Wow. A bunch of people dugg this as I was reading it. Fascinating piece.
- dacrazydude, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1I'm sorry but what the f*** is newscientist.com. These stories have been hitting the front pages of digg recently and none of the stories seem to be very reputable. It seems to be a hybrid between an actual news media and tabloids.
- mashw, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1That's some nice claims you got there, anything to back it up?
- vikingcoder, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1one simple question: How old do you think the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming is?
- funkingmajic, on 01/25/2008, -0/+0"And that won't happen – if indeed it does – for several more years."
several l more years in geological time is zip, nada! - VitriolAndAngst, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1Yeah, we need more Ron Paul like we need more iPhone.
- vikingcoder, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1Thank you for admitting to be a denier. That is what agnostic means - denies possibility of knowledge in an area of study.
It's called global warming because ... wait for it... the globe is warming.
"I don't see how a reasoning mind could, unless they know something I don't"
*ding* *ding* *ding* Congratulations on figuring that out that people who spend their professional life researching a topic may know something you don't. - Rhodamine, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1The last time I heard that one I fell off my pet dinosaur and broke my rock underwear.
- 17to85, on 01/26/2008, -0/+0Well for starters the single most important criteria is the one about the need to be able to identify the age when looking at a sedimentary cross section, but here's the thing, they've got maybe a couple hundred years here where things have changed, a very insignificant amount of time geologically, this has got to last for several thousands more years before it gets considered and there is simply no way to say if that's gonna happen or not.
- DogLover50, on 01/25/2008, -0/+0Mind boggling concept. As time goes on, I wonder if we tend to accept change better or worse in this modern age of the ever changing world ...
- MrSlumberjack, on 01/25/2008, -1/+1Hahaha.. Well said
- overkilpro, on 01/26/2008, -0/+0im sure in after thousands of years we will have found something better than concrete. at least i would hope so...
- vikingcoder, on 01/26/2008, -1/+1That's what I figured. Your ignorance of the past 100+ years of this line of research does not disprove it.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm - inactive, on 01/25/2008, -7/+6The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Quick....someone figure out a global tax scheme that socializes us all and keeps our planet from wandering off orbit and flying directly into the sun!!!!
- Barbyr, on 01/25/2008, -2/+1Evidence of human activity will appear in the geological record as a few millimeters of carbon-enriched crap. The planet will pick up where it left off when we appeared, and natural processes will eventually erase any traces of all this meaningless recycling of fossil fuels. The laws of physics will remain unchanged, and the sun will still shine, and natural selection will have taken care of the most destructive species to ever have walked the earth. Huzzah!
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is