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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What? (Score 1) 393

by jpapon (#47662979) Attached to: 3 Congressmen Trying To Tie Up SpaceX
Of course the government creates wealth when it spends money on projects. Any spending creates wealth, it doesn't matter if it's a private company spending the money or the government. Either way, someone gets money and someone else gets a product. So where before you only had money, now you have money and some product (say, a rocket). Thus "creating wealth". Where did you get this idea that the government doesn't create wealth just like any other investor?

Comment: Re:Probably true ... (Score 1) 795

by jpapon (#41783195) Attached to: Cringley: H-1B Visa Abuse Limits Wages and Steals US Jobs

Anything that gov't purports it wants to provide 'for free' to the poor ends up being unaffordable by the majority because government money and regulations create monopolies and push prices up by making end clients price insensitive and promotes the idea of entitlement not based on productivity.

Ahh yes, such as roads, water, power, gas, fire departments, police, primary education, &c...

Comment: Re:Ice Tea... (Score 1) 370

by jpapon (#41258347) Attached to: Arctic Sea Ice Hits Record Low

The bitch is there are thing we can do WITHOUT using crap and trade that could make a difference, but because people like Al Gore, who just FYI has set himself up to be a a carbon billionaire [telegraph.co.uk], can't profit from it?

Al Gore is set up to become a "carbon billionaire" because he's investing heavily in green technology, which is benefiting from growth due to subsidies by countless governments. It has nothing to do with cap and trade.

If you want to argue against the government subsidizing green-tech companies, that's fine with me. I'll just say this though, I'd rather have the government investing in green-tech than military tech.

Comment: Re:Its Happening (Score 3, Insightful) 370

by jpapon (#41258317) Attached to: Arctic Sea Ice Hits Record Low
What do you mean it's a myth? Overpopulation is an observable phenomenon in almost every form of life, from yeast dying in their own alcohol to deer starving when they lack natural predators.

The only difference is that humanity has found ways using technology to push back the population ceiling (which is mainly determined by food production). Eventually, and this is a certainty, we will not be able to produce any more food on Earth.... or some massive storm and/or drought will cause widespread crop failure. This will result in starvation, and will be a natural check on the human population.

Saying the earth can only support so many of us is an absolute fact. Now, that number might be far, far larger than we currently believe, but that there is an absolute ceiling is without doubt. One absolute ceiling for the population of the earth would be the amount of energy arriving from the sun divided by the amount of energy consumed by a person. Of course, that would mean no energy was being used by anything else on the planet, so it is impossibly high, but it's just to prove a point.

Comment: Re:Wow. (Score 1) 370

by jpapon (#41258191) Attached to: Arctic Sea Ice Hits Record Low
I'd like to thank the parent too, I hadn't heard of this WRF idea. From what I gather, it certainly seems likely that the evolution of WRF prevents any significant production of new coal.

Contrary to what symbolset says though, I think that the impact of white-rot fungus was quite the opposite of "releasing untold billions of CO2 into the air". It seems much more likely that what happened is that, by preventing coal production through tree fossilization, it halted the massive sequestration of CO2 that was going on during the Carboniferous era. This led to an equilibrium, since the coal that had been produced wasn't going anywhere, and WRF was preventing new coal from being produced - most of the CO2 sequestered in new trees was being sent right back into the atmosphere via WRF.

In the past few hundred years though, with the advent of man burning coal, we could easily be upsetting the equilibrium. Humans are, after all, just another species that evolved. If the evolution of trees can lead to a massive decline in CO2 levels due to fossilization, and the evolution of WRF can lead to an equilibrium by preventing further fossilization, there's absolutely no reason to believe that the evolution of humans couldn't lead to a breaking of the equilibrium and a massive rise in CO2 levels.

"Don't think; let the machine do it for you!" -- E. C. Berkeley