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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:He does have a point... (Score 1) 251

So would it be beneficial to figure out a way? Regardless of predicting the future of whether that results in finding no feasible solution, that question can be asked prior to or without ever having a clue about how. What would the benefits be? What would the potential problems be? These are reasonable questions to posit when discussing such topics.

Comment Re:Way out or destroying political career (Score 1) 182

Why now? Because the last few years and last year moreso has seen the exponential rise of the uber-whiner small group of people being given a stage for their hyper-whiny bullcrap. Because they see themselves as similar to at least one other person they assume this validates their point of view so much so that it must be the right point of view for everybody, and you are a _______ (fill in the blank with racist, sexist, whatever) if you disagree and don't immediately bow to their will. With the irony being social media platforms, like facebook, are what gave these fringe groups the idea that they were more than a fringe group in the first place.

Comment Re:I'm confused (Score 1) 481

Why did this AC get modded down? This is a legitimate question. They make a leap from "well we don't know why" straight to "must be human activity". Do you really have to wonder why there are "deniers" to something you claim is so irrefutable? Because you are disingenuous with how you present it. You say "climate change" is a thing, which it is. Climates change. Not as often as the weather, but they change. And that's how you ACT like you're stating it when you stare slack jawed at the "idiocy" of the deniers. Yet in reality you're not saying anything about climate change by itself. You are ALWAYS inferring that the major driver is human activity and therefore to accept that you must accept changes to human activity. Not small changes, HUGE changes. Because if human activity is the primary or even a notable driver of climate change, then the change to make it better has to be global in scale. That means putting your Styrofoam or plastic cups in the recycle bin isn't even close to enough. It means fundamentally altering society. Which means chaos. Which will have a much more dramatic and dire effect on our individual ability to survive. And that's ASSUMING there is a way for humans to avert the type of climate change that makes our lives problematic at some unknown time in the future. But can you assume that without having actual hard data showing the causation (not correlation, not gut feel of your gaia meter) and therefore force change on the global population? You can try, but you'll get no where. Maybe that's what the rabid climate change enthusiast want. An unwinnable whinefest. Well Congratulations, you have it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"All my life I wanted to be someone; I guess I should have been more specific." -- Jane Wagner