Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Ban all NUKES NOW - accident waiting to happen (Score 1) 87

Your argument assumes we already have nuclear energy, which, by and large, we do not.

1. This means we would have to build new power stations, which assumes centralised distribution, which means building those power stations somewhere near the existing coal fired stations - because that is the way the distribution network is designed. Coal fired stations are located near sources of coal - not on sites which might be good for nuclear reactors. E.g. near rivers.

2. This means continuing to maintain and upgrade the existing distribution network, which the public are unwilling to do, because they can generate their own power on their own roof, and don't see why they should subsidize industry by paying the bill for the centralised network.

3. Nuclear power is heavily IP bound, we would have to buy technology from, for example the US or other pre-existing user of nuclear power. Again, this looks to the public like money down the drain.

4. Depending on who you are, acquiring nuclear technology can make the legacy powers (e.g. the US, UK) nervous. Who needs those guys on your back?

5. Even if you have uranium (we have in my country) you still can't just feed it into your reactor. Many reactor designs require you to have the fuel rods made overseas. Again, this looks bad. Why are we adopting a source of power that makes us reliant on overseas companies?

If one of the newer designs was (a) ready to go and (b) commercially viable and (c) open source, so you could build it yourself (d) able to take locally sourced fuel so that you don't have to ship things high and low and (e) relatively foolproof, then in manys case nuclear might be viable.

But not everywhere. There is no way nuclear is suitable for Nigeria, for example. What happens when Boko Haram gets their hands on a nuclear power site? In many places, the key to energy generation is finding ways to distribute the generation so that it generated near the site of consumption. This way, you can have, for example, community owned generating facilities.

Comment Re:Stop. Just stop. (Score 1) 60

Compared to the primordial African savanna "Eden" we evolved to fit, most of the places where humans already live are unbelievably harsh.

No. No: they aren't. They are all well supplied with oxygen and reasonable atmospheric pressure, in all cases you can work outside without being bombarded with deadly radiation. There are no instances of humans choosing to live in places where the ground itself is so poisonous that exposure to it would make us sick.

None.

What's more, as a general rule, humans choose, where they can, to live in environments which are generally conducive to our well being. Nobody really chooses to live in a rat infested slum awash with sewage. That is the point: why don't humans live in antarctica, or one the sides of the himalayan mountains in the death zone, or in the simpson desert?

Because we don't want to. As nice as those places are to visit, and as beautiful as they are, nobody wants to actually live there.

This applies to Mars - and an order of magnitude more. Mars is about as pleasant and hospitable as outer space. Without the awesome views.

Comment Re:NASA (Score 1) 60

We can go back to the moon, there is just no reason. Other than beating the soviets, there was no reason to go the first time.

Yes. Of course the same issue applies equally to Mars: apart from quasi-religious, nobody has articulated a reason for us to go. Hopefully the truth of this comparison will sink in before we waste too much money on this monorail venture.

Comment Re:There is an illusion today among younger people (Score 1) 332

Neither do you, and you're wrong. You saying you're not doesn't make it so.

Would you like me to quote from ancient manuscripts to prove that doing evil things is what makes you evil, not your race or tribe?

Are you so stupid that you replied to my remarks without reading them?

Pot, meet kettle... You didn't actually reply to what I wrote, you simply attacked me...

Because you claimed that my assertion: that evil is an action (i.e 'sin' to give an older name) is somehow relativism, whereas your claim is that: the following is okay: murdering, raping, blowing the arms off kids, electric shocks through the scrotum, claiming that a village is a military base at the UN and then blowing it up, even though it's a village, bearing false witness about the presence of WMD manufacturing facilities in another country. Killing 1 million people. These things are OK, in your mind, because of the team that did them.

THAT'S relativism! You claim that younger people today don't understand evil and don't know what evil is. How utterly ironic: you should introduce yourself! You applaud murder and genocide. Introduce yourself to these kids, and then they will know the face of evil.

Who are these rough men you are talking about? ISIS?

Try the US military, the UK military, etc...

No thanks. I prefer my marriage go ahead without being blown up, my kids retain their limbs and my scrotum unwired.

Comment Re:there is no climate change ? who said that? (Score 1, Insightful) 185

Of course it is derisively dismissed. It's like this:

1. We know arsenic kills people, it's been experimentally proven repeatedly

2. We saw you give the victim arsenic

3. The victim had arsenic in his system, the same arsenic can be forensically proven to come from the bottle you have in your hand

4. Whilst you were giving him arsenic we were shouting "don't let him drink that! It's arsenic! It will kill him!"

And yet you claim the victim died of natural causes based on the fact that 1000 years ago a man died natural causes.

Of course your argument is treated with derision. How can you possibly expect a different response?

Comment Re:lolololol (Score 1) 417

The the leading "authority" on "man made global warming" was the IPCC. The IPCC's hockey stick graph was totally discredited as junk science and the data Was completely manipulated to push the Rothchild Agenda [youtube.com]

Stop lying.

It's funny how repeat what CNN, Foxnews, and MSNBC tells you like a good little parrot. Except all of your evidence has been discredited as junk science.

Yes I've been brainwashed by TV channels that aren't available in my country.Sounds plausible. How did they do it? Satellites beaming down special rays? Should I wear a tinfoil hat?

Comment Re:Don't worry! (Score 1) 417

The climate and the geographical structure of the earth has been changing throughout its history,

Ah - so this current climate anomaly (of 1 degree celsius) is caused by natural variation? What changed in the geographical/atmospheric/biosphere that caused this change?

Show working.

Comment Re:Slashdot Paradox (Score 1) 417

Lying again. Are you hoping against hope we didn't look at the data?

In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.

They were wrong.

Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.

They were wrong.

Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.

They were wrong.

Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!

They were wrong. Or lying.

Then they told us that there was no warming, sorry, we were wrong before when we said there was warming, but here's a single word in an email we heard about that proves the data was manipulated - no! don't look at the data! no!

They were lying

Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of the warming and that this disproved the laws of thermodynamics and model mumble mumble magic happens! Unicorns and Fairies!

They were wrong or lying.

I tell you this in case you feel like comparing your credibility with the credibility of the science again.

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso

Working...