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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:There is no voter fraud! (Score 4, Insightful) 210

No, they tell you that In-Person Voter Fraud is close to nonexistent, the most uncommon variety, the hardest to perform, and the least rewarding.
They also tell you that In-Person Voter Fraud is the only form prevented by Voter ID laws.

And that in an effort to stop those tens of invalid in-person votes per year on a national scale, the trade off is disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters nationwide. Voters who are overwhelming tend to be poor/minority/democratic voters. There are still several other forms of fraud that are easier to perform, and much more affecting of the outcome of an election, which Voter ID does nothing about.

Do try to learn about the topic before speaking.

Comment Re:Lovely summary. (Score 1) 1010

(sorry my dear MRA who got mod points, you cant bury uncomfortable truths)

Literally the exact opposite of the facts.
From the previous story, linked in the summary:

Last year, the Hugo Awards went to mostly minorities and women. In response, a fan group decided to fight back against what they saw as a liberal attack on their medium.

Because the Hugos went to mostly minorities and women a bunch of white males felt attacked. Note that is text book bigotry, the combined assumptions that: A) minorities and women could not and would not have won on their own merits, and a B) that minorities and women winning something constitutes an attack
(not too dissimilar from Christians who think that if they aren't allowed to attack and discriminate then they are themselves the victims of attacks and discrimination)

So these MRAs, because that's what they were, abused the nomination process to flood it with their non-minority non-female nominees, thus poisoning the well.

These were not nominees chosen for their quality or their contribution, but as retaliation against women and minorities winning an award, by attempting to prevent them winning any again awards this year.

So bugger off sewer troll.

Comment Re:Lovely summary. (Score 0, Troll) 1010

Literally the exact opposite of the facts.
From the previous story:

Last year, the Hugo Awards went to mostly minorities and women. In response, a fan group decided to fight back against what they saw as a liberal attack on their medium.

Because the Hugos went to mostly minorities and women a bunch of white males felt attacked. Note that is text book bigotry, the combined assumptions that: A) minorities and women could not and would not have won on their own merits, and a B) that minorities and women winning something constitutes an attack
(not too dissimilar from Christians who think that if they aren't allowed to attack and discriminate then they are themselves the victims of attacks and discrimination)

So these MRAs, because that's what they were, abused the nomination process to flood it with their non-minority non-female nominees, thus poisoning the well.

These were not nominees chosen for their quality or their contribution, but as retaliation against women and minorities winning an award, by attempting to prevent them winning any again awards this year.

So bugger off sewer troll.

Comment Re:Upstart? Scarebus? Comparison to Concorde? (Score 2, Interesting) 345

It's called 'context':
-At the time of the 747's creation AIRBUS was an upstart in the industry.
-Also at that time, there was debate within the industry as to which vehicle was the way forward: faster or larger. Though it's worth noting that Boeing hedged its bets, and worked on both kinds of design.

Comment Re:Why does it matter that he's black? (Score 2) 50

Because he was a prominent civil rights activist and elected in 1968 from Ohio, the first black congressman from that state, a state that while considered northern, has had its own share of racial animus over the years, including to this day.

Comment Re:there is no climate change ? who said that? (Score 0) 185

Denier misdirection and garbage modded insightful.

Water vapor is short lived and exists in dynamic equilibrium, regularly falling out of the air as precipitation in a very short cycle. It may be the largest holder of heat in the atmosphere (indeed the planet if you count the oceans) but it is not the largest driver. Left to its own devices it would not cause significant warming. The effect of water vapor is a reaction to other forces (such as CO2), not a first cause in itself. That is how a minor gas, CO2, can be the main driver of warming even while being a rather small portion of the atmosphere.

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapor varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapor is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

Firstly, the Earth has far more CO2 than Mars, both in raw mass, and per unit area. But while you're wrong there, its also not that relevant: Mar's climate, such as it is, is not driven by the sun or its atmospheric content of gases (CO2 or other), but by dust and albedo. , not the content of its atmosphere.

It's also much further from the sun, receiving far far less energy from it. If the energy on a unit area of Earth is taken as a unitary 1, then the relative energy intensity on the same unit are of Mars is 0.44, or 44%. Less than half as much energy per unit area. Additionally Mars has only 1/4th (roughly) the surface area of the Earth, which combined with that 44% of the energy per unit area, means the planet Mars as a whole is only receiving 11% as much energy as the Earth does. .

To expect the same driving patterns and effect is silly.
BTW, your arguments about water vapor and mars CO2 content actually rather undercut each other!!

http://environmentalforest.blo...

The myth that Mars has more CO2 than Earth

One would hope that a patently false claim would just die rather than being continuously resurrected. Such is the case with the "Mars has more CO2 than Earth and is colder than Earth so CO2 can't be causing global warming" claim. This one is usually based on the fact that Mars has an atmosphere that is 95.32% CO2 by volume whereas Earth's atmosphere is only 0.04% CO2. Unfortunately, all that claim reveals is that whoever is making it didn't get very far in a science class.

If Mars and Earth had the same size atmosphere, then a direct comparison between percentages would be valid. They don't. Measurements show that the Martian atmosphere has a mass of 2.5 x 1016 kg whereas Earth's atmosphere has a mass of 5.1 x 1018 kg. That's right—Earth's atmosphere is 204x more massive than the Martian atmosphere. So we must account for that difference in size before comparing the amount of gas in the atmosphere. The way to do this is simple. Convert percentage volume to percentage mass using moles, then multiply the percentage mass by the total mass of the atmosphere. For those who have forgotten what a mole is, you can partially resurrect those long buried nightmares of general chemistry here.

  Given the following

  1 mole CO2 = 44.0095 g/mole

  Mars:
  Total atmosphere mass: 2.5 x 1016 kg
  Mean molecular mass of atmosphere: 43.34 g/mole
  % volume CO2: 95.32%

  The total mass of CO2 in the Martian atmosphere is

  95.32% volume x (44.0095/43.34) = 96.79% by mass CO2
  96.79% mass x 2.5 x 1016 kg = 2.383 x 1016 kg CO2

  The equivalent calculation for Earth is

  Earth:
  Total atmosphere mass: 5.1 x 1018 kg
  Mean molecular mass of atmosphere: 28.97 g/mole
  % volume CO2: 0.04%

  0.04% volume x (44.0095/28.97) = 0.0608% mass CO2
  0.0608% mass x 5.1 x 1018 kg = 3.101 x 1017 kg CO2

Last time I checked, 3.101 x 1017 kg is larger than 2.383 x 1016 kg by over 13x.

  Now I can hear someone saying "Wait a second. Earth is larger than Mars." Ok. We can normalize the amount by dividing it by the surface area of the respective planet. Given

  Martian equatorial radius = 3396.2 km
  Earth equatorial radius = 6378.1 km
  Surface area of a sphere = 4r2,

  the surface area of Mars is 144,942,710.74 km2 and the surface area of Earth is 511,201,962.3 km2. Dividing the amount of CO2 by the surface area gives us

Mars: 164,409,785.62 kg CO2 per km2
  Earth: 606,609,565.04 kg CO2 per km2

  Which means Earth has 3.69x more CO2 than Mars, even after accounting for the different sizes of the planets. No matter how you want to look at it, the claim that Mars has more CO2 than Earth should be just plain dead.

  So if Earth has 3.69x more CO2 per unit area than Mars, why is CO2 such a large part of the Martian atmosphere and such a small portion of Earth's atmosphere? The answer is nitrogen, oxygen, and argon. Those gases comprise >99.5% of Earth's atmosphere, virtually none of Mars'. Strip away the nitrogen, oxygen, and argon from Earth's atmosphere and of the gases that would be left, CO2 would make up 99% of the atmosphere by volume, an even higher percentage than on Mars.

"Just think, with VLSI we can have 100 ENIACS on a chip!" -- Alan Perlis

Working...