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


Forgot your password?
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! ×
GNU is Not Unix

Richard Stallman Interviewed By Bryan Lunduke (youtube.com) 30

Many Slashdot readers know Bryan Lunduke as the creator of the humorous "Linux Sucks" presentations at the annual Southern California Linux Exposition. He's now also a member of the OpenSUSE project board and an all-around open source guy. (In September, he released every one of his books, videos and comics under a Creative Commons license, while his Patreon page offers a tip jar and premiums for monthly patrons). But now he's also got a new "daily computing/nerd show" on YouTube, and last week -- using nothing but free software -- he interviewed the 64-year-old founder of the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman. "We talk about everything from the W3C's stance on DRM to opinions on the movie Galaxy Quest," Lunduke explains in the show's notes.

Click through to read some of the highlights.

Comment Re:DRONE ON (Score 1) 247

so props for the lmgthy.com link....very nice\


These results have not been confirmed by other ice cores, notably the nearby GISP2 core.

the potential for rapid climate change during interglacial periods remains one of the most intriguing gaps in our understanding of the nature of major Quaternary climate change.

In other words, this is a one off and not supported by other relevant data.

Comment Re: DRONE ON (Score 1) 247

Lithium is completely recyclable. Economically its not viable currently compared with mining new, but keeping the oceans from consuming NYC, Miami and a host of other coastal mega-cities will more than offset this cost; i.e. everything has cost. Still entirely possible and not technically difficult.

Solar panels are likewise almost entirely recyclable.

Bio Diesel can't produce enough to supply the current demand. Definitely a niche requirement, but it simply can't scale globally.

Still on the the fucking trees. Google it. It doesn't work.

Comment Re: Overpopulation in Africa, the Middle East, Ind (Score 1) 247

Nuclear isn't viable. Nobody has figured out how to deal with the waste. Hence it piling up in 'storage ponds'. The folly that we can predict it won't be disturbed for 1000x the length our modern society has existed is laughable. (all that said, nuclear is totally required for the next 50-100 years to deal with climate change)

On that front, my favorite, actually realistic, plan to deal with nuclear waste is to launch it into the sun. Seriously. The entire earth could, err will, be consumed by the Sun and it won't so much as burp. We can totally just throw all of our waste into it with literally zero downsides.

Just a bit economically unfeasible though, at least for now. The real fun fact is it's 'cheaper' to launch that waste out to Pluto and then send it into the Sun. I blame physics ;-)

Comment Re:What's changed? (Score 4, Interesting) 171

The problem is that social media reduces us to the way we present ourselves. While that certainly is part of who we are, it's not the whole story.

One of the most popular maxims of ancient Greek philosophers was "know thyself", and the reason they considered it important is that it turns out to be a lot harder than it sounds. You think you know yourself, but chances people who spend a lot of time in close physical proximity to you understand you in ways you don't.

But online your identity is mediated by how you present yourself. This is not only inevitably somewhat dishonest (in ways that may be more obvious to others than to yourself), even when you are trying to be honest you at best are presenting who you think you are.


Scientists Consider 'Cloud Brightening' To Preserve Australia's Great Barrier Reef (technologyreview.com) 68

An anonymous reader quotes MIT Technology Review: A group of Australian marine scientists believe that altering clouds might offer one of the best hopes for saving the Great Barrier Reef. For the last six months, researchers at the Sydney Institute of Marine Science and the University of Sydney School of Geosciences have been meeting regularly to explore the possibility of making low-lying clouds off the northeastern coast of Australia more reflective in order to cool the waters surrounding the world's biggest coral reef system...

Last year, as El Nino events cranked up ocean temperatures, at least 20% of the reef died and more than 90% of it was damaged. The Australian researchers took a hard look at a number of potential ways to preserve the reefs. But at this point, making clouds more reflective looks like the most feasible way to protect an ecosystem that stretches across more than 130,000 square miles, says Daniel Harrison, a postdoctoral research associate with the Ocean Technology Group at the University of Sydney. Cloud brightening is the only thing we've identified that's scalable, sensible, and relatively environmentally benign," he says... Next month, he plans to start computer climate modeling to explore whether cloud brightening could make a big enough temperature difference to help.

They're collaborating with Silicon Valley's Marine Cloud Brightening Project, which has spent the last seven years "developing a nozzle that they believe can spray salt particles of just the right size and quantity to alter the clouds. They're attempting to raise several million dollars to build full-scale sprayers." The article describes them as "one of several research groups that have started to explore whether cloud brightening, generally discussed as a potential tool to alter the climate as a whole, could be applied in more targeted ways."

Comment Re:"The science is settled" (Score 2) 56

Some of the science is settled, certainly. Methane is a greenhouse gas; nobody expects that to change. Atmospheric methane decays primarily through a long, well-documented chain of reactions starting with oxidation by the hydroxyl radical; the carbon in the CH4 eventually ends up in a CO2 molecule. This is nothing new, and nobody expects it to change.

The precise dynamics by which CH4 interacts with hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere is far from settled science, and nobody should be particularly surprised that there are things about the process we don't know. Not knowing some things about a process doesn't mean we can't know other things about that process.

But some people obviously do believe it means that. They do not distinguish between not knowing everything and knowing nothing. Implicitly requiring scientists to know everything before you consider science credible makes everything a matter of opinion, and all opinions more or less equally valid, at least as far is evidence is concerned. And it's easy to see the attraction: if everything is a matter of opinion you can believe whatever you find comforting. Why not believe Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs? After all scientists don't know everything, which means science is never "settled".

But of course settling questions with evidence is what science is all about. True, there is no science so settled it cannot be attacked; but there *is* science sufficiently settled that claims to the contrary require extraordinary evidence.

Comment Re:DRONE ON (Score 1) 247

Actually, in the long run that will be necessary anyway, because the Earth's climate has significant natural variation, enough that for most of the planet's life-bearing history it's had a climate that we wouldn't like very much.

Since we're still in the infancy of climate understanding; i.e. we can read it and make predictions that generally come true. That's a far far way from being able to engineer it to our desires.

And so dealing with something within 100 years outweighs the planning for dealing with the next ice age in 10,000....

. There's also evidence from both Greenland and Antarctic ice core records that the planet occasionally undergoes very rapid spontaneous (i.e. not driven by obvious causes like large volcanic event) climate changes -- faster than the current anthropogenic change.

Source required for this.

Reducing our "accidental" impact will make the job of engineering appropriate deliberate impacts easier, of course.

Agreed with the caveat that our impact is far from accidental.

Comment Re: DRONE ON (Score 1) 247

Sigh indeed.

You've provided no solutions beyond ones clearly not feasible.

No one said mining materials was emission free. Even if it's 10% of current coal emissions...um, that's a bad thing?

required real estate? you mean rooftops? or road ways? or just panes of glass? Anything that is hit by sunlight can potentially be power generating, drastically reducing the need to centralized, real estate gobbling power plants.

Nothing says you can't recycle the materials in the panels when they are broken. And the batteries required for grid scale solar are similar. We already recycle lead to the point that it's no longer present in the environment beyond normal background levels. And that was just in 2-3 decades after massive pollution.

You seem to bent on perfect when good will do just fine.

Slashdot Top Deals

The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely 1 bananosecond.