Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment Re:Science Deniers (Score 1) 290

Don't deny the science. The earth is 1.8 degrees hotter than the last 100 year average. Not sure why I would relocate over a 1 degree change in average temperature, but I just follow the science not hysteria.

This is primarily referring to areas of the tropics and coastlines.

But, to put that temperature change in perspective, -2C below the 20th century average is enough to plunge the world into an ice age. It takes a lot to move temperatures, but it doesn't take a lot of change to significantly alter the climate.

Comment Re: Better up the Military Budget (Score 1) 290

There's plenty of land. There will also be plenty of useful farmland - it just might not be the same land that makes good farmland today.

That's a bullshit lie you're pulling straight out of your ass. The amount of arable land in the world is limited. Not even considering how one would easily and cheaply move major agricultural infrastructure, where do you see all the "useful farmland" magically appearing? Where are these virgin, nutrient, non-parasite laced soils? Do these areas just happen to have diurnal cycles that match the crops too? The right pH? The right amount of rain and drainage? Solid aquifers to provide water during lean years? Are they easily accessible? Are the native species conducive? Will any species brought along by such a transfer suddenly grow wildly out of control due to no natural predators to keep them in check?

There are thousands of factors at play, and there a few regions in world which actually permit the large scale operations we use currently to produce most of the world's food.

The problem isn't really an overall resource shortage, it's that which land is valuable will change.

Yes, the problem will be shortage. If areas where current production is done dry up, there aren't any other areas that can take their place in any reasonable time frame.

Wars have certainly started over just that. People will need to move, likely across current borders. How will that end up?

No need for some flood of refugees, though. This is a slow change, by human measure. Plenty of time to work on moving, perhaps emigrating, to where you want to be.

The changes aren't slow by human measure. It took decades of building up the support and infrastructure necessary to support current agricultural operations. Assuming these magical untapped farming areas exist (which they simply don't), you'd need to put the same infrastructure in place there to support operations (likely more).

It can take years to relocate, but we have years.

It would require decades, not years. We also haven't established where the best areas to relocate would be, and now we certainly won't with a bunch of scientific illiterates at the helm.

Make good use of them if you believe in all this.

If your worried about a flood of refugees ruining your home area even though you found a good place, promptly, well, join the club.

When a million starving desperate people are heading straight for you, you get out of the way. When people have nothing left to lose, they don't really care about laws and morality. That's why the military and intelligence organizations are very much interested in climate research. It's not only so they can have effective plans for dealing with the impacts here, but also to identify likely areas of socio-economic unrest that could flare up with potentially bad global impacts.

Comment Re:John Doe warrants are the problem here (Score 1) 203

When the IRS or any other agency wants discovery of evidence in a case, it should be demonstrating interest in a specific person, partnership or corporation being investigated. The whole idea of John Doe warrants is an unconstitutional fishing expedition. Let's hope that now we'll get some new Supreme Court appointees who don't rubberstamp the government's every whim.

You do know who was elected right? You're aware of the types of people he's filling his cabinet with and listening to?

The same person who tweeted flag burners should be thrown in prison and have their citizenship strip is the same person who will be sitting in the Oval Office. If you think for one second someone like Trump, his cronies, or pretty much anyone in the alt-right gives one shit about your privacy and warrant limitations then you are going to be in for some eye opening surprises over the next four years.

Comment Re:The real sham (Score 1) 1424

is how the media twists and contorts just about every news item lately to paint the President Elect in a negative manner. Either liberal views or an attempt to stay relevant in this day and age, either way it's just sickening.

So, reporting facts is considered "liberal views"?

Tell me, are his pending court cases "liberal spin"? Is hist long and sordid history of the past decades "liberal spin"? Are his cabinet picks who represent a range of idiots to psychotics "liberal spin"? Is his backing out on his so-called campaign promises "liberal spin"?

Get real. You're actually calling Fox News a member of the "liberal media". The only way you could possibly do that is if you consider Breitbart to be "fair and balanced".

Honestly, the media doesn't need to do any work to paint Trump in a negative light. He does that all by himself.

Face the facts, the liberal opinion and political agenda doesn't work and the people have voted as such. Media as we knew it is just getting lost in the noise that is the internet. Intelligent people are able to see the difference between signal and noise no matter how much noise the liberal media produces.

  Whereas our political system isn't perfect, its better than any in history and people are more intelligent than the media.

Oh yes. Liberalism is a complete failure. That's why we're in so much worse shape than 2008.

Comment Re: Change the law (Score 1) 1424

...Well, the EU parliament has fascists -- yes, actual self proclaimed fascist politicians -- holding many political offices. A whopping 25% of the population of France and Denmark, and a slightly lower percentage of the population of about 15 other European countries are voting for their country's fascist party and electing fascist MPs.

Trump doesn't even begin to fit that description, and any US politician who exhibits even a hint of that these days typically ends up handing in their letter of resignation in very short order, and their career is basically finished at that point...

What? Have you not been paying attention?

Trump is a fascist. He's is not relinquishing control of his business empire. He is not putting it into a blind trust. He's already cashing on the Presidency and using it to promote his own businesses. His children have been gallivanting around the world currying favor and business relations for dear old dad. He's basically Mussolini but without the military experience right down to his political tactics.

If you think Americans would roundly reject a fascist you have an incredible naivety. The republicans have been moving in that direction for decades. Trump just hit the fast forward button.

Now let's see if the Constitution is worth the paper it's written on, shall we?

Comment Re:Coal to grow in the USA?? (Score 5, Insightful) 275

quote: "As for the U.S., it gets about 33% of its total electricity generation from coal and will likely grow the coal industry rather than phase it out under President-elect Donald Trump."

I don't believe it.

The coal business is dying from natural causes in the USA, and I don't think there's anything Trump can possibly do to turn that around...

There's plenty he could do. Look at corn based ethanol as an example. It's not cost effective. It's barely energy positive (if at all). Yet thanks to the mighty corn lobby, that's where our ethanol comes from even though there are plenty of better sources.

With a big enough lobby with deep enough pockets just about anything is possible.

Comment Re:Some of you, remember you voted for this. (Score 0) 667

You're a fucking idiot.

NOAA does not build or launch or maintain satellites. They don't. NASA does. That's what they do. NOAA does not have flight ops. NOAA does not have a launchpad. NOAA does not have giant clean room facilities for building satellites. NOAA provides the requirements, NASA builds/launches/maintains the satellites.

Cutting the funding means no launches. It means the current satellites are no longer maintained. It means new satellites are not built. It makes us look pretty fucking stupid as our scientists now have to go and beg other countries for data to do their research.

Comment Re:This is the worst summary (Score 1) 667

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

NASA Mission one as stated in the charter: To Understand and Protect Our Home Planet

That means conducting terrestrial science and research. Neither NOAA or NWS or any other agency launches and maintains satellites for terrestrial science. That falls on NASA.

Comment Re:Cold, heartless liberal bean counters (Score 1) 385

Is that why so-called conservatives are anti-science? Is that why they're against same-sex marriage? Is that why they're anti-gay? Is that why they're anti-vax?

I could go on, but you get the point. Conservatives are only fact based when it fits their ideology. Otherwise, it doesn't matter how many facts you give them they will declare it "bullshit" and continue on their merry way.

Comment Re:I feel sorry for you guys. No joke. (Score 2) 395

Rational adults don't pack up and move to Canada when an election doesn't go their way, nor do they build a bunker, collecting guns and freeze-dried food in preparation for some sort of Armageddon. Donald Trump may be an arrogant bastard who thinks of attractive women as trophies to fondle, but he's not Anti-Christ-Hitler-Stalin-Pol-Pot. The fringe right also said a lot of idiotic things when Obama was elected, only the mainstream press was having a collective liberalgasm over electing our first black President, and so probably didn't care as much about reporting it.

Any law passed can also be repealed, and the President can be ousted every four years if he gets to be too unpopular. In truth, very little can be done to significantly change things without Congress' approval (you know, that "balance of powers" thing), and the Republicans have a *very* slim majority in the Senate.

A year from now, when the country hasn't actually imploded, all this angst is going to look a bit silly in retrospect.

You think a piece of paper is going to stop someone like Trump? He reminds me a lot of Mussolini actually. That aside, all it takes is a little fear at the right time to turn a democracy into an authoritarian state "for your protection".

The difference between Trump and Obama is that Obama never said, nor had a history of saying, despotic ideals. He never got a crowd riled up to lock up a political opponent. He never threatened news organizations with lawsuits, even Fox at the peak of Beck Mania. Obama didn't place some authoritarian communist alt-left ideologue in a positions of high authority/advisement. So on and so forth.

As far as congress goes, what rock have you been sleeping under? Have you not been paying attention? It's pretty damn clear Republicans are more than happy to bend over if it means getting a chance to push their agenda/increase their standing/keep their jobs/etc. . They're not going to stand up to Trump, and if the Republicans aren't your can bet good money democrats won't. Republicans have very flexible spines, but democrats have no spines at all.

So we'll just wait and see. Will we become some sort of authoritarian fascist theocracy or will Congress grow some balls and reign in the nutjob sitting in the President's chair.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can't take damsel here now.

Working...