You could just stop buying cigarettes, sticking them in your face and setting fire to them. I quite smoking (when I had reached the point of craving a cigarette while actually smoking one) by asking myself a few questions: do you really want to give your consent and your money to an industry that slaughters its own customers in their millions? do you want to do something so evidently disgusting and stupid as paying a predatory corporation to poison you? do you want to look like an idiot? would you smoke if cigarettes had arsenic in them (nicotine is about 4x as poisonous)? who's in charge here? A tip for those who want to quit: choose a moment of maximum stress – first day back at work, middle of divorce, moving house.... The -– mild – distress from nicotine withdrawal gets lost in the noise.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Thank you. Climate change is of course real, but it is an epiphenomenon: the underlying fact is over-population, which seems to have become a taboo subject.
ASAR, MERIS, AATSR, MWR, GOMOS, MIPAS, SCIAMACHY, DORIS, LRR (https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/missions/esa-operational-eo-missions/envisat/instruments) - although only the first two gave anything that could be called an image. Maybe "integrated atmospheric water vapour column" sounds promising...
Synthetic Aperture radar porn with a 30 metre pixel size - kind of a specialised taste.
Maybe you're just trying to be funny. Envisat did much to establish the facts and mechanisms of climate change. There's no conspiracy: it grew old and died.
The shuttle couldn't reach its orbit, and if it could, the satellite was not designed to be worked on in orbit (unlike Hubble), and even if neither of those things were true, nobody would think it a good idea to spend around a billion dollars to try and fix a satellite 5 years past its design life span, with no idea what's wrong with it. Satellites die. Move on.
New Scientist magazine has tried twice, to my knowledge, to restrict web access to the subscribers to their - very expensive - magazine. They did not even offer a web-only subscription. I wrote each time pointing out that this was foolish, and I would have been prepared to pay a reasonable (i.e. small) sum for access, but was fobbed off with a bit of corporate boilerplate. Each time the paywall lasted a few weeks before coming down.
I'm no free-market fundamentalist, but in this case the EU, rather than throwing its weight around passing ill thought-out legislation, could have waited for market forces and common sense to produce the desired result.
(Yes, I know: there's nothing rarer than common sense...)
I have written something better -- much better. Still waiting for my money.... I confess: I don't know how to connect with the semi-literate millions.