Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:I'm all for recreational drone use but... (Score 1) 22 22

Jackasses seem to keep ruining it for everyone. For example i was at an art show and it was pretty packed, some jackass drone operation was flying a larger model, around 4kg / 10 lbs or so, up and down the isles probably 15 feet over people's heads. It was large enough that a simple slip up, if not outright killing someone would have caused a few trips to the ER. It's that kind of jackassery that ruins it for everyone.

It's finally starting to be a greater danger to be injured by an idiot teenager looking for some hits on his youtube channel than being hit by a stray firework.

it is unlikely to be a teenager because large drones are very expensive. i find it more likely that an overconfident adult is going to hurt someone. but hey... i think there are some kids on your lawn, right over there!

It depends in where you live. Not far from here there are plenty of idiot teenagers that have affluenza. Although it is rather redundant to say idiot and teenager. Certainly I was an idiot at that age it's to be expected.

Comment: Re:I'm all for recreational drone use but... (Score 1) 22 22

It was city property with a permit for the show. It was being done illegally and obviously with little oversight. If you can't understand the danger of flying an upside down lawnmower with no safety guards over a crowd of people, which by the way is against the current FAA regulations, then you are part of the problem.

Comment: I'm all for recreational drone use but... (Score 2) 22 22

Jackasses seem to keep ruining it for everyone. For example i was at an art show and it was pretty packed, some jackass drone operation was flying a larger model, around 4kg / 10 lbs or so, up and down the isles probably 15 feet over people's heads. It was large enough that a simple slip up, if not outright killing someone would have caused a few trips to the ER. It's that kind of jackassery that ruins it for everyone. It's finally starting to be a greater danger to be injured by an idiot teenager looking for some hits on his youtube channel than being hit by a stray firework.

Comment: Re:Whoever says the pope is getting into a politic (Score 1) 305 305

In regards to your first point, it is ENTIRELY political.

Climatologists are the guys we should be listening to about what is happening and what, if anything, we can do about it but the decision about how we prioritize our resources to improve our collective world is *entirely* & *essentially* a POLITICAL problem.

Scroll up that's exactly what I said. Perhaps you don't live in the USA but here the majority of people are nutters who deny basic science facts and instead believe wholeheartedly that their made up fantasy is what the world is. I need to suppress the urge to break the nose of people who say its hubris to think humans can change gods creation - these are the same nutjobs who don't believe in evolution (as if that affects the truth of it). At least this is a step in getting those extremely stupid people to change their tune, if only a little.

Comment: Whoever says the pope is getting into a political (Score 3, Insightful) 305 305

Whoever thinks the pope is trying to pick sides in a political debate is either genuinely insane or has trouble forming simple logical concepts. Because on the scientific overall concept it's not even a debate. The best methods for combating climate change though, are still only scientific. Politics dosent even enter in until you try to implement those methods.

Go ahead and mod me down but I'm really sick and tired of people thinking what they believe makes a crap in a biscuits difference to reality. Even though the popes statement may be lacking its a great step to get hundreds of millions of stupid people to start acting responsibly and be aware of the issue. It's just so ironic that it is a belief in faith, with no foundation in factual reality, that brings awareness to the factual reality we as a species are facing.

Comment: Re:Effect of nukes on NEOs (Score 2) 272 272

Actually that's the entire point. Sure movies have it dead wrong. But the general idea is to gently boil off material over the entire side giving it a small kick. Several would be needed in all likelihood and hopefully at least one orbit ahead of time. At the very least several AU of distance would be needed.

There are much better ways of handling it though and the insignificant chance of a deadly object we can deflect with that method is likely dwarfed with the chance of incompetence and mishandling.

Simply drilling into it and fragmenting it would be disastrous at close range, perhaps even makng it more deadly and is as likely to completely reduce it to dust as exploding a whale with tons of dynamite.

Comment: Re:Plenty to go around (Score 1) 692 692

Easily as in we just keep what we are doing at the pace we are doing it. As you may be aware housing prices aren't exactly sky high all over and as far as I have seen there is no genuine shortage only social and political issues. Right now we are close to being able to pack 30+ people in per square meter in 100+ floor buildings. In 200 years it's likely 500 floor buildings will be possible. In any event there is no space shortage whatsoever.

Comment: Plenty to go around (Score 3, Insightful) 692 692

The whole premise is bull.

There is more than enough food to feed everyone. The problem is mostly just politics such as feeding a SUV enough corn to feed a family of 10 for a day to simply drive to the mall and back or letting relief supplies get resold on the black market.
space? Are you kidding me? Huge sections of the earth are completely barren, with existing technology the USA could easily accommodate a thousand or even a million times its population and not run out. Maybe some tiny countries have issues but not the world in general. We aren't even building floating cities yet.

medicine mostly has the same issue as food and the complex relationship between patents and rights and patients who need the medicine. Some is genuinely expensive and difficult to produce. But even today street bums get better medical care than kings just 300 years ago. It will only improve.

All the earth needs to support far far more humans is cheap clean energy and automation. Nuclear fusion, cheap solar and similar technologies will likely be a reality before humans living forever. Same with completely autonomous and self contained manufacturing. Combine the two and you could create hydroponic fields thousands of layers deep tended by robots and powered by light from a fusion reactor. You could build complex mega cities capable of housing a billion people.

Comment: So when did it become Ethan day on slashdot? (Score 1) 62 62

This is the second article today. Typically authors of blogs and news stories get one exposure on slashdot per million years. It's quite rare for even two exposures. Imagine how the Slashdotter community would be rocked if four Ethan articles were posted within a single day!

Comment: Re:The "edge" of the universe? (Score 4, Informative) 64 64

So how do they know that the "background" microwaves are from the edge of the universe? I thought that the primordial microwaves are scattered throughout the universe, so what we see when we look in some direction is the sum of all the background microwaves coming from that direction.

If we're actually seeing the edge, doesn't that shoot down the idea that the universe doesn't actually have an edge, and everywhere appears to be at the "center" of the universe? How was this idea disproved? I seem to have missed the discovery of an actual edge, somehow.

The cmb is simply the first light that was able to freely travel through space. There is no actual 'edge' but there is always the apparent virtual edge beyond which you cannot see. It's easiest to think of it as space being infinite in size but finite in age. Light needs to travel to your eye to see so the farthest you can see is simply the age of the universe x the speed of light. As the universe cooled right after the Big Bang, initially light could not directly pass through all the hot plasma, only after it cooled and became transparent to visible light did light spread out in significant amounts. The heavily red shifted version of this light is the cmb we see today. Your own two eyes see a slightly different virtual 'edge' as every point in the universe looks as if it is the center.

It took about 380k years for the universe to become transparent to light neutrinos pass through ionized material easily and the surface of last scattering is nearly as old as the Big Bang. It's a very old concept but has been researched lately as each kind of neutrino would have a slightly different background. The article is just random click bait there is nothing new or interesting about it really.

Comment: Re:Why ban? (Score 1) 204 204

It would have to be a good captcha. I coded a vision to text function myself for another game i was botting on, it's actually not hard to bypass. It did piss people off when they reported me and I passed, sometimes when I came back i saw upwards of 10 successful passes on my log.

If it's not in the computer, it doesn't exist.

Working...