Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Submission + - Paris climate deal fails everyone

BillCable writes: Whether you're a climate change "denier" or a catastrophic global warming true-believer, the Paris climate deal should get your blood boiling. For those who see global warming as a hoax, the Paris deal is a hugely expensive boondoggle to address a problem that's either overblown or doesn't exist. For those who feel immediate action is necessary to avert global catastrophe, the deal will prompt virtually no genuine carbon emission reductions. In fact, pledges by both China and India to reduce emissions fall short of their projected carbon reductions absent any agreement.

China, for its part, offered to reach peak carbon-dioxide emissions “around 2030” while reducing emissions per unit of GDP by 60-65 percent by that time from its 2005 level. But the U.S. government’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory had already predicted China’s emissions would peak around 2030 even without the climate plan. And a Bloomberg analysis found that China’s 60-65 percent target is less ambitious than the level it would reach by continuing with business as usual.

Comment Re:The problem with "get there first" (Score 0) 239


Scientists estimate the asteroid belt also contains more than 750,000 asteroids larger than three-fifths of a mile (1 km) in diameter and millions of smaller ones.

I don't predict a shortage in the foreseeable future. By the time we run out, we'll have moved on to other solar systems.

Comment Re:The problem with "get there first" (Score 1) 239

Wow - you jumped right over to space war pretty quick.

Given the vast, nearly limitless quantity of uninhabited asteroids, I don't think we'll ever see a scenario where men in space suits are going to be shooting lasers at each other to defend their claims. As soon as we have the tech to mine one asteroid, we'll have the tech to mine thousands of them. The scarcity won't be due to a dearth of asteroids. There will be some that are a lot easier to get to than others, but you're not going to be up there shooting away your competition.

Comment Re:Hardly A Technical Problem (Score 2) 173

There's not enough nuclear fuel to do that. We have enough uranium for 200 years at CURRENT consumption rates. If you build 10 times the current number of nuclear plants, you'll only have 20 years worth of fuel.


It would require other mystical technological advancements for all-nuclear to be a viable option.

Comment Re:Highest Profit (Score 1) 712

From FBI statistics:

Nationwide, law enforcement made an estimated 12,196,959 arrests in 2012.

So out of 12 million arrests, there were 602 suspects killed (statistics from Wikipedia). That a 1-in-20,000 "failure" rate. Sure, we'd prefer a perfect performance by our law enforcement officers, but given that I'm sure many of those 602 suspects engaged in life-threatening resistance, 1-in-20,000 isn't all that bad. I'd conclude the training is pretty effective.

Comment Re:Highest Profit (Score 1) 712

In this case, there should also be mandatory training for officers on how to deal with people who don't immediately comply.

Police certainly complete many hours of training in "how to deal with people who don't immediately comply." I'd hazard to guess that subject comprises the majority of their mandatory training.

Comment Re:Alarmists - wrong on global warming since 1978! (Score -1, Troll) 255

I never said I thought it was impossible to screw with the climate. It'd be easy. Want a temperature decrease? Drop a few nukes in Siberia. That'd throw a ton of matter into the atmosphere, causing dramatic global cooling. Sure there'd be radiation poisoning to those who lived around there and global famine, but we'd solve that whole global warming thing for a few decades.

Bad solution there. But it would ACTUALLY have a significant cooling impact on global temps.

Switching to windmills (which have a huge carbon footprint in their manufacture) and solar (ditto, plus the whole poisoning China thing with harvesting rare earths) won't have any significant cooling impact, ever. Those "solutions" are bunk. Better to go whole-hog on fracking - natural gas burns much cleaner with minimal environmental negatives compared to its energy density. But then the same people who cry "global warming" cry "no fracking." The perfect is the enemy of the good.

In the end, I have faith in the species to adapt or to invent technologies that actually will be helpful. We're not there yet. Band-aid solutions in the short term are meaningless. So are gotcha-type articles about Exxon.

Comment Re:Alarmists - wrong on global warming since 1978! (Score 1) 255

It's silly to be fanatical when there are no viable solutions. Even the most extreme proposals to cut CO2 would have an impact of around 1/10th of a degree temperature reduction. It's laughable. The second someone comes up with an effective, viable solution to drop 2 degrees, I'm on board.

"No, no, I don't mind being called the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." -- Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, WATCHMEN