Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: we saw that the science was falsified by the C (Score 5, Informative) 371

This is more of an addendum to the just-above msg, than a reply.
Fact One: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It is more transparent to frequencies of visible light than frequencies of infrared light.
Fact Two: The total content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing as a result of human activities. The two largest sources are the burning of fossil fuels, and the production of concrete.
Fact Three: The exact amount of greenhouse effect of existing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is unknown. We only know that it must be some magnitude greater than zero. See Fact One.
Fact Four: Adding still-more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can only increase the existing greenhouse effect. See Fact One.
Question: On what basis could it be called a "good thing" to keep increasing the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Comment Re:Enough rope for impeachment (Score 1) 820

The Preamble of the Constitution clearly specifies the purpose of the document. How can anyone who works at some cross-purpose be considered a defender of the Constitution?
Regarding evidence, Follow The Money. See who has been supporting the deniers of AGW --and note that the magnitude of the donations absolutely indicates rich donors, not poor donors.
Finally, I did not specify any "high cost mitigation approach" in my prior post. While it is supposedly widely known that while the first step to solving a problem is to recognize the problem exists, my other post only talked about denial and ignorance, regarding AGW. But here's how I would choose to deal with it: I'd promote nuclear fusion research. Knowledge is power, and the sooner we have that knowledge, the sooner we will have the associated power!

Comment Enough rope for impeachment (Score -1) 820

It may be possible to impeach a government official for violating the Oath of Office, which includes swearing to protect and defend the Constitution. Trump has made no secret of the violations he intends to commit, after taking office. For example, Constitution specifies that one of its purposes is to "promote the general Welfare" --which does not mean promoting only the welfare of the rich, and it is mostly the rich who desperately want all the data about Anthropogenic Global Warming to be ignored, so they can keep getting richer, while ocean levels rise and drown the home of millions of ordinary citizens.
Next, Trump claims to want to make America great again, but then he goes and starts appointing people who promote ignorance, not knowledge. Knowledge Is Power! --not ignorance. It is know-how that was one of the factors that made America great in the first place. To promote ignorance is to not-hardly be consistent with the Oath of Office, to defend the Constitution and consequently promote the general Welfare!
The last thing I'll mention is Trump's claim to oppose abortion --and that means enslaving pregnant women, when they don't want to stay pregnant, in violation of the 13th Amendment. Note that the Constitution requires a Census of ALL persons ("except Indians not taxed") every 10 years, and the Founding Fathers were right there in 1790 to specify the details of how the very first Census would be done. No unborn human has ever been counted in any Census! This means that the Founding Fathers did not consider the unborn to be persons, a Constitutional Precedent far predating the Roe v Wade decision. And modern scientific data about what we might call "generic personhood" indicates that dolphins are vastly more likely to qualify as persons, before any unborn human. Our unborn are mere-animal entities, nothing more than that, and to enslave women as life-support systems for mindless animals would be a heinous crime quite worthy of impeachment.

Comment Alternative (Score 4, Insightful) 917

There is an alternative. The whole notion of UBI depends on the assumption that goods must be purchased. But if they are getting made for essentially free (after costs of capital investment have been recovered; also think in terms of renewable energy and resource-recycling), then why should there be any charge for those goods? Logically, if the goods can be made for free, and obtained for free, an income isn't really quite as important as the OP indicates.

Comment Re:How about (Score 1) 168

How about RFID chips? Attached to speed limit signs, stop signs, mile-markers, road-number signs, street-name signs, reflectors embedded in road surfaces, etc., etc., etc., the passing cars could ping the chips and acquire relevant information, especially info relevant to where the car is located in terms of the RFID chips. We already know those chips are cheap enough to put in all those places at minimal cost, and considering new cars are already installing radar to detect possible collisions, an appropriate alternate frequency is all that needs to be enabled, to ping the chips.

Comment Re: What's the _actual_ algorithm. (Score 1) 78

I don't know what Helfgott's algorithm is, either, but here's one that can do 40:1 data compression of prime numbers (can pack 200 million 32-bit primes in about 100 megabytes of space), and it is arbitrarily extendable to higher compression rates (per bigger data-compression table).

Comment Not a bad guess (Score 1) 167

Human population has expanded tremendously in the last part of those 800,000 years, and all of us consume oxygen. It probably can't explain the first 700,000 years, though, since total global hominid population was probably fairly constant, with one species supplanting another.
But what about methane? We know it leaks from places like hydrate ices underwater, especially when there is an earthquake and landslide, and of course since it exists underground as natural gas, we know it can leak from there, too, if an earthquake happens to rupture the ground enough. Methane is a light gas that will rise toward the stratosphere, and likely react in the ozone layer. I'm talking about a long term slow thing, not fast enough to deplete ozone as fast as solar ultraviolet makes more from atmospheric oxygen. But the reaction produces water and CO2, and takes oxygen out of the air.

Comment Re:The New Invasive Species (Score 1, Insightful) 231

Regardless of what Captain Kirk might do, it is silly to think that potentially habitable planets are not already microbial hosting life-forms. All the data about early life on Earth indicates we got it almost as soon as the planetary crust cooled enough for life to be possible. It seems more likely that life arrived from elsewhere (panspermia) than thinking it evolved here --not enough time to evolve. Plus, we have data indicating that life may have existed even before the Earth existed. Therefore we should expect every planet that can possibly support life to already have it.

Comment Two more problems with Venus (Score -1) 211

On Earth it appears that the oceans put enough water into the crust as to make plate tectonics possible (the water lubricates fault lines. If Venus ever had plate tectonics, it probably stopped when the water evaporated. And then there is the fact that Venus is tide-locked between the Sun and Earth (always has the save face toward Earth when the two planets are closest together). Earth's magnetic field exists partly because of its rotation, and that magnetic field helps protect its atmosphere. Venus hasn't got the necessary rotation rate.
I once speculated about a way to make Venus habitable. Like many good tricks, it can mostly be done with mirrors. :)

Comment Re:Read some Engels (Score 4, Interesting) 519

It seems to me that the article focused on Communism because it is simpler and easier to model than Capitalism. This does not mean that it cannot be done for Capitalism. It also does not automatically mean Communism is better than Capitalism. On the other hand, Capitalism does seem to have a problem, in that the evidence indicates it helps the rich get richer while everyone else gets poorer. If that "seem to have a problem" could be proved mathematically, then perhaps Capitalist economies might consider some sort of modification to be appropriate. Perhaps the ideal economic system has some Capitalist characteristics and some Communist characteristics. But we won't know until they all get mathematically modeled.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling