Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Or is life more stressful? (Score 1) 432

Is there any study showing that life today is more -- or less -- stressful than life decades ago? These days, it seems like both parents need to work in order to have enough money to raise kids. Further, the kids need to do more extracurricular activity to get into a good college, which means the parents spend more time driving around.

To be clear, that is just my observation. I have not done an objective study to measure stress. I just don't think we should blame the medical industry until we've ruled out the other possible cause(s) for more people with mental health issues.

Comment Re:Blaming the Wrong folks, Probably in Trouble. (Score 1) 284

>> It's like a billionaire asking why they can pay a tax of a 1/2 million dollars as pocket change ...

Especially since combustion of fossil fuels significantly aided our billionaires in gaining those billions. But hey, if things go to heck in a handbasket, at least they'll have their virtual bank accounts with which they can buy food...

Comment Re:Last Post (Score 1) 33

I actually do use different names and passwords for each account. The email address doesn't change though, which means someone could try using it on other sites to try getting my username and resetting my password at those other sites.

Even less important accounts can have serious side effects if compromised. Say someone got hold of my /. account. No, they can't drain my bank account, but they could post stuff so threatening that law enforcement comes knocking on my door. After legwork and legal fees, I would be able to prove I didn't post that stuff, but that's still a lot of stress and wasted time&money.

Comment Re:Climate Non-Science (Score 1) 448

1 degree of global warming isn't enough for you?

And there is a big difference in falsifiability: you could go to school and learn the physics that go into climate change. If you ever found a point where the teachers told you the equivalent of 2+2=5, you could point that out to the world. Whereas, if I went to seminary(?) school (apologies for not knowing the correct term), there's no way to guarantee God would ever speak to me.

If only 5% of the Louisiana damage was caused by climate change, that's $1B that could've been spent on green energy. That, in turn, would lead to reducing the pollution that causes breathing issues (asthma) or heavy metal poisoning (mercury in the fish we eat). If we don't burn coal, the mercury in the coal can't drift into the sea. If we did get off fossil fuels, that would save $361B to $886B annually.

Comment Re:Climate Non-Science (Score 1) 448

Because the real predictions (2C or 3C global temperature rise, more frequent and destructive storms, etc) are only going to be proven after it's too late to do a damn thing about it. It's like the ball metaphor in Minority Report. Climatologists are saying "The ball is going to hit the floor in a few decades", and deniers are saying "It hasn't hit yet, so it never will." Only in this case, the ball hitting the floor has serious consequences. But hey, who cares if we can start "catching" the ball today, and in the process, save more money than we spend as a result of cheaper energy and lower health care costs?

Comment Re:Activism (Score 1) 323

What's wrong with saying we've "used up" a year's allotment of clear air? Wouldn't the allotment just be the amount of O2 generated by plant life consuming CO2? If humanity somehow raised CO2 levels to 70,000 ppm, breathing would become difficult. Yes, climate change would become seriously bad long before that. However, it would still be nice to try to live using only what the planet can recycle, until we can figure out how to cleanly recycle more if needed.

Comment Summary implies all scientists are bad (Score 4, Informative) 609

> They often get it wrong, thanks to their inherently irrational brains that -- through overconfidence, bubbles of like-minded thinkers, or just wanting to believe their vision of the world can be true -- mislead us and misinterpret information

Yes, but
1) Most are willing to admit they are wrong when an experiment result contradicts their theories.
2) Most are looking for the right answer, not the most profitable one.

I'd take that over our current Golden Rule model every time. Just look at leaded gasoline, waste disposal, or climate change to see examples of the golden rule hurting the average person. We have gotten rid of leaded gasoline, but it took one scientist nine years to convince the government that big business was lying. We're still fighting big business for good, long-term waste disposal and to minimize climate change

The only challenge I see is that, if we ever did switch to the Science Rule model, greedy idiots will claim to be scientists and put the true scientists in the minority, which would bring us back to the Golden Rule model anyway.

(I say Most in the bullets above because I'm pretty sure folks in it for the money these days wouldn't be scientists. But I also know there are a few bad scientists, so I sure as heck won't say 100%. I have no idea of how to test a scientist to see if they are good or not, other than to have well educated folks review a scientist's previous work.)

Slashdot Top Deals

"Well I don't see why I have to make one man miserable when I can make so many men happy." -- Ellyn Mustard, about marriage