Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Slashdot Canidate (Score 1) 688

by NalosLayor (#44814841) Attached to: How Car Dealership Lobbyists Successfully Banned Tesla Motors From Texas
You should consider being an adult. Listening to people who talk to you, and not obsessing over political labels. If someone argues a ridiculous position, call them on it. This kind of tribalism is why we have no good leaders anywhere in government. It's far too easy for politicians to lead people around by the nose, simply by waving the right label flag in front of them.

Comment: Re:Cool idea, but never happen... (Score 1) 368

by NalosLayor (#42977539) Attached to: NASA's Basement Nuclear Reactor
Electric Utilites were quite happy to make their regulated profits selling more, ever cheaper power. It was really only a combination of the oil crises of the 70's, de-nuclearisation and government incentives to cut energy use that turned that tide. People today like to make fun of the old idea of electricity "too cheap to meter" but remember, your local phone bill is that way (wasn't in the past), and your internet access and water used to be that way too, until certain forces reversed the tide of history.

Comment: Re:But for Terraforming? (Score 1) 264

by NalosLayor (#42799385) Attached to: Updated Model Puts Earth On the Edge of the Habitable Zone
You're the third person to make this same reply to me. Take a look at the GP. That's not the scenario he was proposing. Even the aerostat colonies pose a much more significant problem: what good are they? They would be as hard or harder to build than space colonies, given that you could not extract local resources you end up trapped in a gravity well, and gravity will be turned "on" during construction, unlike rotating space habitats. Plus, what would they make? What would the trade economy be? A mars colony could grow lots of food in a shallow gravity well, a lunar colony could export processed silicon and aluminum, and asteroid colonies could provide heavy metals and other raw materials. There is simply little reason to build a "colony" on Venus, in the short or medium term. A research station, sure. a colony? Nah.

Comment: Re:But for Terraforming? (Score 1) 264

by NalosLayor (#42793925) Attached to: Updated Model Puts Earth On the Edge of the Habitable Zone
Yes, and fixing that would be something that requires several orders of magnitude more space capability than we currently have. Dome cities could be done which would have a pretty decent effect, but in the very, very long term, we could bombard mars with water rich asteroids from the asteroid belt. While I concede that this is extremely unlikely today, it's certainly a hell of a lot more feasible than removing the Venusian atmosphere and making Venus spin faster.

Comment: Re:But for Terraforming? (Score 4, Interesting) 264

by NalosLayor (#42792409) Attached to: Updated Model Puts Earth On the Edge of the Habitable Zone
Issues with removing the atmosphere aside:

1. I'm pretty sure that Venus doesn't have an appreciable magnetic field.

2. Even if it did, its day is about the same length in its year (e.g. about 250 earth days) so nobody could live in any fixed place on the planet without freezing or melting, even if we got rid of the thick atmosphere. You'd have to live in trucks rolling slowly around the planet in the ... pardon the pun ... twilight zone.

Mars on the other hand has normal days and could be warmed up with a greenhouse effect. Also, the thicker atmosphere would provide additional sheilding at the surface level. One could imagine the last few percentage points of shielding being made up with local magnetic field "bubbles" around settled areas, powered by fusion reactors, assuming we have that technology in the next century or so.

Comment: What food crisis? (Score 5, Insightful) 107

by NalosLayor (#41051451) Attached to: First Evidence That Some Insects May Rely On Photosynthesis
No, seriously. There is no food crisis. As a species we have a food distribution problem, and a food wastage problem and they're rather shocking at that, but we really have no issue with feeding the population of earth today without resorting to eating genetically modified photosynthetic aphids. Now, a long term lack of motor fuel, is a problem, but aphids don't really solve that either. Mind you, this is scientifically interesting, but there really is no need to tie every technically interesting scientific discovery to the end of the world. Believe it or not, some of us like science for science's own sake.

"Life sucks, but it's better than the alternative." -- Peter da Silva

Working...