Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: You are underestimating it (Score 2) 325

by aepervius (#49766795) Attached to: Greece Is Running Out of Money, Cannot Make June IMF Repayment

it will be a long and hard period (perhaps even 10 years) of adaptation

You are *severly* udnerestimating it. It is not only that greece wll have tod efault, but also that greece will still be noted as junk as far as bond goes so will not be able to borrow again at good rate EVEN after default, but also that now that greece is outside of the eurozone, it will have to either junk their own currency so far down the rabbit hole to make export / import not kill them that the inflation in the subsequent decades (note the plural) will take a long time to stabilize the economy. And once out of the eurozone , guess what ? Greece will STILL have to have cut back on cost or have extreme inflation , maybe hyper inflation and their own bank default, if they start issuing bond on their own currency and spend like no tommorow.

Greece is a warning to France or even spain, italy and other of the eurozone with ramping up debt : get your table cleaned or it might get burn down as a sanitisation process by others.

Comment: Re:what is the harm? (Score 1) 242

by oneiron (#49765465) Attached to: California Votes To Ban Microbeads

Why are you beating around the bush? Why are you not stating clearly what your definition actually is?

I joined this conversation specifically to address the broad accusation that folks participating in this conversation "can't articulate a single problem with them." I'm really not interested in the semantic distinction or argument for/against banning that you're focused on, but since you've asked; I think the way you're calling it a theoretical possibility is overtly dismissive and stifles rational discourse. You asked the same question twice, so I'll ask you to re-read everything up to this point. Fair's fair.

California votes to ban microbeads. I ask for evidence of harm. People get abusive and hostile.

Don't take it out on me. I'm not fear-mongering, and I'm not being evasive. I just didn't join this conversation with the intention of addressing your argument. I'll wait here while you go back to take another look at my original post in this thread.

Since you've asked, even though I don't really give a shit that they've enacted a ban, it's fair to say the ban is definitely not supported by the environmental science we've discussed.

All of that environmental science aside, it seems to me that selling plastics intended to enter our wastewater systems and likely unable to be captured by many such systems amounts to basic littering. I can't think of a good reason to allow that in consumer-level products other than to avoid inflicting economic harm on the industries that sell those products. Maybe you can help me out there...

Comment: Re:what is the harm? (Score 1) 242

by oneiron (#49763593) Attached to: California Votes To Ban Microbeads

I guess the take-home lesson from all the non-responses is that there is next to no evidence of actual harm

What we've got is evidence of a mechanism that can cause harm by concentrating compounds into our food chain that shouldn't be there. That is to say, we know compounds bind to the surface of these plastics. We know animals are consuming the plastics. We know these harmful compounds are absorbed into the animal when the plastics are consumed. If that's what you call, "next to no evidence of actual harm", then I a guess we agree.

...and no plausible way in which the ban will significantly improve the marine environment

First, you shouldn't mistake my simple recognition of the facts as tacit support for the ban. I'm happy to acknowledge more research is needed before taking a drastic step like banning the microbeads, but I don't think this perspective should impede a rational discussion about the potential impact of these beads on our enviornment and food supply.

Second, it's most definitely plausible that banning the beads could ultimately result in less of the compounds we've been discussing entering our food chain. Maybe that doesn't fit your definition of significantly improving the marine environment? Fine, I'll also agree with you on this one.

Finally, I don't agree that 'significant improvement of the marine environment' should be the singular criteria for enacting bans on pollutants.

Comment: Re:what is the harm? (Score 1) 242

by oneiron (#49760673) Attached to: California Votes To Ban Microbeads
First, they "concentrate" toxins by passing them up the food chain into continually larger organisms after the toxins were ingested by smaller ones. By the time the toxins have moved a ways up the food chain, they've been concentrated into the larger organisms. Second, it's not FUD because "the majority of animal life on this planet" resides in the ocean, by far. Also, higher concentrations of toxins inflict demonstrable harm.

Comment: Re:what is the harm? (Score 2) 242

by oneiron (#49759507) Attached to: California Votes To Ban Microbeads
Congratulations. You've misinterpreted the "the only complaint" that you saw. It's more than just man-made "pollution". It's more accurate to say they concentrate other toxins.

First of all, a number of natural toxins exist and are produced every day by organisms (e.g. cyanide) and natural phenomena like volcanic activity. Just like man-made pollutants, those natural toxins are being passed up the food chain via microbeads when they should be resting harmlessly outside the reach of our food chain.

Second, pollution exists and cannot be "undone". It's ludicrous to bring up the fantasy of "if there was no other pollution" because we've been making very large and very permanent deposits ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Currently, the only real solution to this problem is time and patience, and microbeads interfere with our ability to bide that time without inflicting harm upon the majority of animal life on this planet.

Comment: Re:bye (Score 1) 526

by JThundley (#49757007) Attached to: Ads Based On Browsing History Are Coming To All Firefox Users

"Firefox is open source and free, but they introduced a tiny bit of advertising that can be turned off. Time to jump to a proprietary browser made by an ad company that's already tracking everything I do!"

I don't like this development either, but ditching Firefox for something less free with more advertising is retarded, just like you are.

Comment: Re:Camer was owned by the school (Score 5, Informative) 375

The school owned the camera he used. Therefore all work from that camera belongs to the school.

No. It does not work like that. If you borrow my guitar and write a hit song, it's your song, the copyright is yours. If you borrow my camera and take a Pulitzer-winning photo, it's your photo, the copyright is yours. Copyright goes to the creator of a work, not to the owner of any tools incidental to the creation.

The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.