Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Not just party preservation. Ideology preservat (Score 2) 306

Bullshit. The reason they didn't want to actually repeal it is because the second older Americans' insurance rates spiked because all the younger people pulled out or picked discount plans, there are lot of Republicans suddenly looking at serious problems when they have to seek re-election. Americans have made it pretty clear; they hate Obamacare, but they like the ACA, which shows you that branding is pretty important.

And no, they're not going to let Obamacare die either, because the end result would be the same, spiking premiums that would screw over their own voters.

Comment Re:Not just party preservation. Ideology preservat (Score 1) 306

Never the less, the survival of the ACA suggests, as some Conservative commentators have put it, the "Europeanization" of American health care. In other words, everyone seems to know that one way or the other a single payer health care system is likely the ultimate "fix" of Obamacare.

Comment Re:By the year 2100? (Score 5, Insightful) 213

That's 80+ years from now, in other words we have time.

Really? And how, do you plan to deal with the accumulated buildup of 200 years in the span of 80 when a good portion of the populace don't even understand the basic science and refuse to accept reality? Climate change is bringing about a whole host of issues, a number of which need to be dealt with far in advance. We're already 40 years behind the curve.

Furthermore, the climate system lags inputs by a good 30 years. In other words, if you think you have a problem now, it will be worse 30 years later.

I hear that the sea levels are rising.... at about a foot per century. We can adjust to that without getting all in a panic.

You "hear" incorrectly. Assuming no runaway feedbacks kick off, the expected increase by the end of the century is between 1 and 2 meters. As far as dealing with it, we're already FAILING. Places like Miami flood during high tide now. Salt water intrusion is already a problem. Even a 1 meter rise would present significant challenges, and shoring up thousands of miles of coast to deal with that (not to mention hurricanes) is neither trivial nor quick.

I've been told that the corn belt is moving north. Unless this happens in the span of a single growing season then I find it hard to get worked up about this. Farmers already rotate crops for reasons of keeping soil in good shape. If over a few decades the rotation of crops needs adjusting then they'll figure it out.

This is why ignorance is dangerous. You do not simply "move" the agricultural infrastructure that's been developed over the past century north. Such an effort would take decades, even if were feasible. There's are REASONS why the corn belt is where it is. Arable land, ideal climate, etc. allows for very productive farming. But what's north of that? Are there aquifers to support such operations? Will the sail be able to handle the stress? Will the climate actually be conducive? Can the crops handle the new conditions?

It takes more than warm weather to grow crops at scale. You have to have the right mix of conditions. There are very few places on our planet where mass agriculture can be done consistently and productively. Sure, you can move to a new area if prices get high enough to make it feasible to turn someplace like, say, the Canadian Shield into farmland, but I don't think paying $30 for a loaf of bread is "dealing" with the problem.

Rain this, droughts that, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, blah, blah blah. We got this figured out.

No, we really don't. If you've been paying attention over the past decade, there are several prominent examples of exactly how NOT figured out things are. First to mind is the record heat/drought in Russia a few years back that caused them to cease exports. And that's just a taste. If a similar event caused the US to cease exports there would be significant global repercussions. If you think we're immune to such things, you're extremely naive.

We've all been hearing this panic for decades now. All we are doing is getting the next generation stressed out over nothing. They are getting bombarded with climate change disasters in movies, cartoons, in the news, and on and on. Kids can't get away from this but when they grow up and have to deal with this on their own they will realize like I did that this is a big nothing.

The only reason you think it's a "big nothing" is because it hasn't impacted you personally (it actually has, you just aren't paying attention). Climate change happens over decades. It's slow boiling a frog. You and people like you expect an immediate cause and effect. The climate system doesn't work that way short of major catastrophes.

A quick read of the comments on this article so far tells me that I'm not alone in how I feel on this. The climate change alarmists have been pushing the panic button so often for so long, with nothing to really show for it, that no one pays attention any more.

The SCIENTISTS have provided and cornucopia of evidence of global changes that you ignore because you think massive changes to planetary biomes you don't live in have no effect on you. Why do you care that the arctic has lost over 30% of it's ice volume? Why do you care if huge chunks of land ice are falling of the Antarctic? Why do you care about lack of monsoonal rains in southeast Asia? It doesn't impact your life so there's no problem, right?

It's the same with people and going to their doctors, ignoring symptoms until they show up in an emergency room. You choose to ignore and remain ignorant in the hopes that it will all just go away on it's own. It won't.

Here's the problem now. If this climate change that is coming is in fact a real problem then we're all screwed anyway because no one listens any more. Because the climate change alarmists would not police themselves and point out bad science when it came up no one can tell what is true any more.

Again, 80 years, we have time.

The climate SCIENTISTS have been pointing out the bad science coming from the right and climate cranks for decades. The propoganda firms funded by fossil fuel companies tried to bury and obfuscate the science for decades. It happens every time there is a threat to some business's bottom line. Ozone, acid rain, tobacco, leaded gasoline, it 's the same shit just a different day.

It's you and people like you who are intellectually lazy that are part of the problem. There is literally over a hundred years of science and research on the topic of global warming. Stop listening to Breitbart and Faux News, get an intro book on climate dynamics, and educate yourself. Stop being part of the problem.

Comment Re:from an amateur astronomer... (Score 1) 125

I second the Baader Solar Film. You can get sheets relatively inexpensively and as the OP said, an A4 sheet is enough to make several lens adapters as well as multiple pairs of sunglasses/viewers. It's used and has been used extensively in the amateur astronomy community for quite some time so is very well regarded and safe.

Comment Re:Watch when their resuable rocket thing pans out (Score 3, Informative) 99

The real value is what they plan to start launching once they get their cadence up. They're looking to launch a constellation of around 4000 LEO satellites to provide cheap, global, low-latency, high-bandwidth internet. I've seen some analyses of their plan, and done some of my own, and their numbers on all aspects are in general "tough, but it should be doable". The goal is to take over 50% of the backhaul traffic on the internet, while rapidly growing it by providing high speed access to previously isolated parts of the globe. The amount of money being talked about if they succeed is mind-boggling.

They're not the only one with this goal. Samsung announced a similar proposal, and Blue Origin is also striving for it. Everybody sees the dollar signs; the question is who will actually achieve it first?

Comment Re:Floppy (Score 3, Informative) 125

Do not do either of these.

A floppy disk has only marginal IR protection, and blurs the image heavily.

Soot works if you deposit it at the right thickness, but it's easy to get the thickness wrong, and the slightest smudge can eliminate your protection; the coating is very fragile.

A common third trick is looking through CDs. Which can work, if you pick the right one, but their transparency varies dramatically, so there's no guarantee that an arbitrary one will offer sufficient protection. If you're willing to risk your eyes with an improvised filter, a CD should be good if you can barely see an incandescent bulb through it.

Photography filters and photographic film should never be used for looking at the sun. They don't block nearly enough IR.

More info about various homemade and professional filters tested here.

Comment Re:Welding helmet (Score 5, Funny) 125

I do the same thing; it's designed to protect against the exact same thing (light emitted by a hot plasma, containing blinding amounts of UV and excessive visible and IR). The main downside is it makes you look like a weirdo when you're standing around in public looking at the sun with a welding helmet on ;)

I guess if you want to go hardcore, you could have the welder with you and act like you're trying to weld the sun. Then people will stop seeing you as a weirdo and just think that you're high instead. ;)

Comment Re:if only we had an Federal Labour Court or union (Score 2) 70

Dam the EU is so nice. Over time cap / better workers rights and healthcare not tied to jobs.

Somewhat startlingly, these are among the very reasons that some wanted UK to leave EU. They call it "taking back control", but things like this are what has irked a lot of the anti-Europeans in the Conservative party.

Comment Right or wrong - there clearly is a need (Score 1) 95

Whether it is right to make scientific articles, published by commercial journals, freely available - and on the other hand whether it is right to hamper the freedom of scientific research by making the articles prohibitively expensive - is perhaps open to discussion, although I personally think all scientific research should be freely accessible. But it is clear from the popularity of sites such as this, that there is a huge desire (as well as a need) for open access to research. Unless the commercial scientific journals can somehow address these issues and give people what they want, they won't be sustainable in the long term; and I can't see how they can do that.

Slashdot Top Deals

"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company."