Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:The science is not settled (Score 1) 529

You are right, the planet doesn't care. Life isn't easy to maintain and it will suck in the future. But it also sucked in the past and we still managed to build up that world spanning civilization. The climate may have helped to a certain degree, but despite different climates, humans have managed to settle across most of the horrible environments the world has to offer from tropical places filled with disease to deserts with practically no water, to the arctic reaches. I'm not to worried about a few feet of sea level rise or a degree or two of warming on average.

Comment Re: The science is not settled (Score 1) 529

Considering the Earth orbiting (roughly) the sun is something we can measure and use to refine and improve orbital models is a prime difference between it and climate science. Give the Earth a few more climate cycles that we can judge against the models we have developed and then maybe I'll put more stock into climate change predictions.

Comment Re:The science is not settled (Score 3, Interesting) 529

That last one is pretty key. For some reason that is the primary focus of all anti-CO2 actions despite that being the least tested hypothesis. The geologic evidence is the exact opposite being that the warmer periods of the planet have had the most prolific life and the coldest periods have had most of the mass extinctions.

What makes people think the climate of pre-industrial humanity is the "ideal" climate? Transitioning may be hard, but shouldn't we determine what the optimal climate is before spending resources trying to control it? Wouldn't those resources be better spent on transitioning if a warmer planet is indeed better for life?

Comment Re:25 mph? (Score 1) 582

Obviously you don't live in an area with traffic... I cut through residential neighborhoods because I can go 5-10mph in them instead of the 0-3mph on the main arterials. If it weren't for the unnecessary stop signs for a side street with 7 houses on it, traffic might be able to get up to 25mph. Forget about the highway... And I do get to the racetrack as often as I can.

Comment Re:legalism is a crap philosophy. (Score 1) 582

A.5 Require new residential developments to consider traffic flow and allow for through streets that do not have residences along them.

Ah wait, who am I kidding. They have those and the residents petition the local government to put up unnecessary stop signs and speed bumps to enforce a 25mph speed limit for a wide road with painted lines, shoulders, sidewalks, and fences between the right of way and any houses. Nothing says fancy neighborhood like having a line of cars waiting to go through a stop sign where no one ever comes from the side street.

Comment Re:legalism is a crap philosophy. (Score 1) 582

Being a new transplant to Atlanta, what the hell? The speed limits are plenty high, but that doesn't stop a rolling roadblock of 7 cars wide on I-85 going 55mph in a 70 zone...

The related issue here is a common problem in Atlanta. Residents of huge residential developments complain about traffic cutting through their neighborhood. The problem is that their neighborhood was designed without traffic flow around and through in in mind so they didn't provide any arterial or feeder roads and expect all the cars to go around the multi-square-mile development onto the existing arterial streets that are parking lots.

They protest the cars going through their neighborhood and put up unnecessary stop signs and speedbumbs to discourage drivers. But this just slows them down and pack the residential streets into a slow moving parking lot as well. Does this make things safer for kids? No. Does this make things better for residents? No. The solution is to sacrifice some "residential" streets and upgrade them to higher speed through streets and allow the traffic to get where it's going, Impeding them just makes them angry, impatient, and distracted which doesn't help anybody.

Plus I drive a small, low car and speedbumps are the bane of my existence. I hate anyone who thinks they are a good solution anywhere.

Comment Re:Turn off Wifi on a Comcast Modem? (Score 3, Informative) 172

For phone services, I would suggest looking into an OBi100 or similar device.

This is similar hardware to Magicjack, but it works with whatever VoIP provider you choose.

I'm with, which is $.01/minute billed in 6-second increments for all calls (in and out). There's an extra $1/month, plus another $1/month for 911 service. If you want caller ID names, it's an extra $.01/call, but only if it's not in the contacts you set up on their web page. There is a fee for porting numbers.

Another option is Google Voice. All calls (US/Canada) are free, but there's no caller ID names, even from your Google Contacts. Also, Google only lets you port mobile numbers, not land-line numbers, but people have managed to do it by first porting their cell phone to a prepaid cell. (I have our outgoing calls set to a Google Voice number, which can be a bit confusing for people.)

Comment Time-of-day metering (Score 4, Interesting) 298

Sure, drop the rate back to wholesale for the buy-back of net metering, but then price it based on the spot market at that time, not the overall rate. The prices are highest during the day, so net metering for solar would likely pay more than the retail rate if the utilities had to pay for it based on the time.

Overall, utilities are saving money from solar--they're reducing what they have to pay to support peak demand, and now they're coming back and trying to suck more money out of their customers.

This is a money grab by the utilities, plain and simple. This has nothing to do with fairness.

Comment Re:Skeptical (Score 1) 176

Your analogy is flawed. This would be more akin to someone saying "I agree that the evidence fits evolution, but I believe that God created the earth with conditions to allow humans to evolve."

I agree with the theory, I don't agree with their extrapolated models. I also think that research dollars spent trying to figure out how warming will damage the environment would be better spent researching how to take advantage of a warmer climate. I already believe that a warmer planet will be a net positive for life in general and if humans are smart enough to adapt (we usually are) we will prosper on a warmer planet.

The devastating impact on humans will come from wasting resources trying to stop the ship instead of using them to steer the ship where we want it to go. We may be accelerating natural warming or causing unnatural warming, but what we cannot do currently is control the climate. Geo-engineering the climate and trying to stop fossil fuel usage causes known harm today to try to mitigate future harm. Instead we could cause no harm today and migrate towards taking advantage of the benefits a warmer climate brings.

Slashdot Top Deals

The fancy is indeed no other than a mode of memory emancipated from the order of space and time. -- Samuel Taylor Coleridge