Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:No shit ... (Score 1) 134

I'm not sure if this kind of transnational market can ever be properly regulated, since that would involve changing the idea of what constitutes sovereignty in every single country.

That's not unique to carbon offset schemes, either. Even if you went with a straight carbon tax governments would find ways to subsidize critical industries so the tax didn't actually reduce carbon emissions.

Comment Re:No details (Score 1) 100

I've always wondered if this could be done with GPS. If you know where you are and where the tower is, you can figure out what angle the mirror should be to point at the tower. That would get you close enough for some kind of autocalibration if you put the right kind of sensors on the tower and had a link to the mirror controller.

Comment Re:So, Japan is winning the new space race... (Score 1) 87

Besides flight 4 and 19, the only thing on your list that's at all meaningful is the fire on flight 7, and even then... a success is a success. The fact that you can have problems like engine-outs and still make it to orbit is a point in favor of the design.

Every time they've had an engine out on H-2, the flight is over. This is the third iteration for that rocket family, and the first two both had failures.

Comment Re:Finally (Score 1) 750

The few top end of the corporations are earning more and more so they get to lobby and _donate_ money to government policymakers disturbing basic democracy.

This already happens, though, and the reason is large media outlets are owned by the same corporations with undue influence on governments. So the media is only "on their asses" when they do something the corporations don't like, or are at least indifferent to.

Comment Re:Oh noes, the poors! (Score 1) 750

The idea of basic income means different things for different people around here, but AFAICT the idea is not to give people more money.

The assumption is you'll have pretty much the same number of people working that you have today. But people respond to incentives. It may be the number of people working will go down, which would ultimately mean a tax increase to cover the difference.

Comment Re:4/5 in favor (Score 1) 750

There are a whole lot of people out there who could sit in easy, lower-paying jobs, and still pay rent and put food on the table, who don't do that.

Sure, but the reason might be "Well, I have to work anyway so I might as well make as much as I can". With a guaranteed income the first part isn't true anymore, and some portion of the population is going to decide live will be better on permanent summer vacation. I'd probably do it myself.

Comment Re:4/5 in favor (Score 1) 750

Believe it or not, the vast majority of people want to take steps to better their lives.

I don't see much evidence of this. There are a whole lot of people who don't make any effort to move up the employment ladder, for whom a job is just something you suffer through until quitting time. I suspect the Fins will find a sizable portion of the population will be perfectly happy to live on basic income, preferring to spend their time watching television and drinking. How sizable? It will take a few generations to know for sure.

"The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is experiment." -- Richard P. Feynman