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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Begs the question... (Score 1) 118

Actually, this is backwards. Cancer risk decreases for the first low dosage radiation exposure.

This is because the radiation "turns on" your body's natural radiation fighting responses. Those responses are actually pretty good, so turning them on decreases cancer risk initially. But if the radiation exposure gets higher, the body's system can't keep up.

So for optimal cancer risk mitigation, you want slightly higher radiation than Earth currently puts out.

Comment Re:Got another accident for your list (Score 1) 117

However the true cause of the crash was actually nepotism. The copilot that caused the crash (by continually stalling the plane until it hit the water) was not the best for the job, he just had the best connections. He did not know that continuously pulling back on the stick would stall/crash the plane.

Of course, the real root cause of the crash was that there was no obvious feedback that he was pulling back on the stick. The PIC did not know he was doing that until he mentioned it right before impact, by which time it was too late to recover. (from the transcript: copilot: I'm pulling back on the stick, why doesn't the nose go up. command pilot: NON!)

Comment Re: Don't worry (Score 1) 280

Maybe one day the liberal "dont hurt my feelings while i piss on yours" community will realize how fucking stupid and truly hated their kind is in this country.

Yes, this. Think about it, over 50% of American states dislike liberals so much that when presented with the false choice of Hillary to Trump, they chose Trump anyway...

Comment Re:Well yeah (Score 0) 715

Our Government, contrary to what you might believe, actually does thing for people. Good things

Just because you believe it doesn't make it true. This election was won because most people no longer believe that, after seeing the government screw up so much stuff.

Everything the government does, it does at the expense of individual freedom. When the government hands out education, they are removing money from me (so my education suffers) and gives it to Racist Studies majors. If you are not a politician, you lose from any interaction with the government.

On the flip side, why is it that the area around DC is so expensive that none of us could afford to live there - when the maximum government worker salary is lower than ours? Because politicians win by working in the government - it's called corruption.

Comment Re:eating less (Score 2) 256

This is simply not true. About 20 years ago, I lost the ability to walk. (Also sit, stand, etc.) I gained a lot of weight.

Three years ago, I was put on an exercise regime that made it so that I can walk again. It is very intense - so intense that I get tendonitis of my joints once ever few months (and they don't let me stop exercising then either...).

I have not lost any weight at all. I look better, and obviously feel better, but my mass is more, not less.

Comment Re:So global warming is a farce after all (Score 1) 313

Thanks for posting this link. The linked report demonstrates the issue precisely.

On page 7 of the pdf summary report, it talks about the "bad stuff" that is predicted due to climate change. The major data points given are that crop yields will fall. This is in direct opposition to all the science I have read on the topic, for example Obama's EPA.gov site says "Agriculture and fisheries are highly dependent on the climate. Increases in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase some crop yields in some places."

They try to paint a highly negative picture, but then provide the data in chart below that. Crop yields are steadily increasing.

Whenever I look into the source data, I see this kind of thing. Dire consequences predicted, but then even a cursory examination of the data show that the prediction has been falsified.

Data points:

*) Fish failures predicted - real data shows that the fish simply move north/south (https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply)
*) Crop failure predicted - real data shows steady growth of crop yield (https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply)
*) Land flooding predicted - real data shows that the land movement effects swamp any issues with the sea rising (Florida has no problem, Louisiana has major problems) (https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-coastal-areas)

Does anyone have a prediction of "bad stuff" made in an IPCC report that has actually happened? (I am limiting "bad stuff" to things that my children's children will actually care about) The old reports are now old enough that there predictions should be apparent by now. I have reviewed the reports, and the cases I looked at (sea level rise, crop failures, fishing) were all falsified by what happened in reality.

If the IPCC has no predictive power, why should we use it to guide policy?

Slashdot Top Deals

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them WHAT to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

Working...