Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Not Entirely A Bad Thing (Score 1) 488

They will have to attack neighboring states to "make a hole" and most of the neighboring states are quite strong, militarily. Getting them to commit suicide via inadvisable military endeavors, esp. when they will have no supply lines because growing food will become impossible at the higher temperatures may also not be a bad thing. They all die in a war they start that when they could have just shown up at the border, hat in hand, begging for asylum that would most assuredly be granted, would scatter them, and make them much more concerned with their situation than with killing everyone in the world that is not Muslim.

Comment Re:Not Entirely A Bad Thing (Score 0) 488

There won't be any war there because there won't be any people there. What part of "uninhabitable" are you having trouble with?

And as far as war goes, we can beat them in a straight-up war. As Bill O'Reilly has said repeatedly, "General Patton could destroy all of ISIS in a week." Its the damn Jihad nonsense, the cowardly war against civilians that has to be stopped. Making them all refugees would be a great start.

Comment Re:With the Republican's AGW... (Score 1, Offtopic) 144

Oh, here we go again. Gloom and doom, etc. etc.

What I always want to know is even with unlimited money, just what do you think you could do about "global warming?" Our whole society runs on energy, and without it our crops don't get grown and they don't get to market. The fuels to make electricity require energy to move them from the oil or coal fields to the generators where they are turned into electricity. And cars and trucks run on oil, there are millions and millions of cars, and nobody has invented the "magic battery" to allow us to run them without emitting.

And if you try to spend unlimited money, you end up throwing people out of work. They go into poverty. What is more dangerous to your health than smoking? Living in poverty is more dangerous than smoking as it can take up to 10 years off your life. Smoking is only "good" for a 7 year reduction in lifespan. Plus, those kids that are living in poverty and experiencing undernourishment will have their brains fail to develop fully, and this damage cannot be reversed later.

And since the Chinese and the Indians don't give a flying F about the global warming scarecrow, they are going to continue to dig coal like it is going out of style. That means that the rest of the world that considers themselves "sane" will have to go to zero emissions. We can't do it. We don't have that tech yet. We may never get that tech. The only way we could achieve zero emissions is kill a really significant portion of the population and go back to animal-powered subsistence farming like the 1800's, but of course the lifespans would be like the 1800's. Izzat what we want to do? And, as many scientists claim, the AGW theory may yet be a hoax, and if so, we could kill millions for nothing.

People can whine about global warming all day, but unless they have a SOLUTION, I don't want to hear it. "Doing a little bit" that is insanely costly and doesn't amount to 0.05 degrees of reduction is just torturing the citizens for no good reason. I want a full-up, "completely stop the warming" solution or I say we don't spend a damned dime toward it. Half measures just harm all.

Comment Just Guessing (Score 1) 67

but there's probably enough energy in the Yellowstone magma chambers to 100% power all our (humanity's - the world's) energy requirements for absolutely everything we do. Tapping it fully, MAYBE we could keep it from getting any hotter. Suspicious we could not construct enough heat sinks to actually cool it at all, its too big.

Comment Re:Overthinking the Problem? (Score 1) 161

About 10 years ago I was forgetting where I was on my way to work, not remembering whether I had made the turn from one road onto another, etc. I fixed it with aerobic exercise on an elliptical crosstrainer at my health club. Got up to an hour and 1000 calories of exercise, which helped with keeping weight under control, too. Just a thought if you'd like to try that. Oxygen to the brain, I think is probably at work with the exercise thing. I just know I have to keep exercising, or I'm going to go all to hell and prolly won't be able to remember my name eventually.

Comment Re:Overthinking the Problem? (Score 1) 161

I'm 68, and literally keep a highlighter in my pocket, a yellow one. (but don't need instructions to get around... ) I pull it out every now and then when I get a piece of paper with a phone number on it or an address that I want to be able to find on the page easily, and swipe some yellow on that. Highlighters are just cool!

I road rally with the Sports Car Club of America, and can get anyone anywhere with a set of rally instructions. That's why I thought of this. Don't know if it would work with someone having memory problems, but its something to try is all.

Comment Overthinking the Problem? (Score 1) 161

Why not try ancient tech, pencil and paper.

Create a set of instructions to be executed in numerical order:

1) Leave the dining hall using the big white double doors.

2) Continue to the Sidewalk intersection with the flower pot in the middle.

3) Take the rightmost sidewalk

4) Go left on the sidewalk just after the building with number "289A"

5) Enter the building marked 289A at the 3'rd sidewalk entrance.

and so forth.

Print up a few hundred of these for the trip to and trip from each of the points he has to go to. When following these instructions, he can mark off each one with, say, a highlighter to let himself know at what part of the journey he is, in case he forgets. You could even make up these instructions with visual cues, such as photographs of what the closeby landscape should look like at any point.

Dunno if it'll work, I've never worked with people losing these cognitive abilities. All I can say is give it a try.

Comment Re:Cue the Big Oil Hatred... (Score 1) 385

Still didn't explain how you're going to produce food, move it and other commodities, and get people down the road for billions of vehicle miles using only "clean" energy at a price that we can afford. Doesn't happen without the magic battery. No magic battery, and the gov't can get involved all it wants, and people will still starve, and become pauperized, unless using fossil fuels.

Comment Cue the Big Oil Hatred... (Score 0) 385

But then explain exactly what you think you're going to do about it. You can build all the wind machines and solar farms you like, and even 100 more big nukes, and you know what? It won't power your cars and trucks down the road.

But it has to power your cars and trucks down the road, because without them, commerce, and most significantly food production and delivery stops. We have one viable way to get everyone where they need to go and that is the individual automobile and truck. And that absolutely, positively requires oil until someone invents the magic battery to make electric cars and trucks happen. But the magic battery most be cheap and small and cheap and lightweight and cheap and high capacity and cheap and rugged enough for automotive use and cheap. If it ain't cheap, then Joe Lunchbucket as well as Farmer Brown can't afford it and all the aforementioned bad stuff happens. But we do not have the magic battery, and we may never get the magic battery. Someone has to invent it, and it is not known to be even possible until someone actually does it.

No magic battery ever? Then we have to figure out a way to use grid electricity to power all our vehicles everywhere. That probably can't be done either, and if so, we probably all die when "cheap enough" oil energy no longer exists. So, the best thing all the leftist enviro-whiners can do is to quit whining, get their PHD's in electrochemistry, and get their butts into a lab somewhere and invent for us the magic battery. Otherwise, we're pretty much screwed at some point.

Comment Re:You don't stop terrorists by patting people dow (Score 1) 357

I said, "By the gov't." If I come into your home, you have the right, but the gov't doesn't. If YOU have an airplane, YOU have the right, but the gov't doesn't. Customs is different because you don't necessarily have the right to cross the border. You have the right to travel, tho, and the gov't searching everyone traveling by airplane is illegal under the 4th Amendment. The airlines could set up such security and do it just fine, they aren't the gov't. But the gov't doing it is illegal under the 4th amendment.

Comment Re:You don't stop terrorists [full stop] (Score 1) 357

Disallowing weapons is not a good thing. If the passengers on flight 93, as well as the other planes had been armed, they would easily have overwhelmed the terrorists. Our best security would be to encourage concealed carry of weapons onto airplanes, so the bad guys wouldn't know from where the threat to their plans would come. They would have to assume that every passenger on the airplane who is not a child has a gun. In actuality, maybe 10% would be armed, but that's a lot of people to thwart your plans if you're a terrorist.

Comment Re:You don't stop terrorists by patting people dow (Score 1) 357

" transport on the system is not a right."

Uh, yeah it is, at least being transported without being searched by the gov't is a right. Judge Napolitano on Fox News went into great detail about this, with what they are doing being absolutely positively illegal with respect to the 4th amendment. The gov't just can't legally do what they're doing. The AIRLINES can institute, pay for, and run a TSA-like security system, but not the gov't.

We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on when it's necessary to compromise. -- Larry Wall