Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States

Largest Dam Removal In US History Is Complete (bbc.com) 104

The largest dam removal project in U.S. history has been completed with the demolition of four dams on the Klamath River, marking a significant victory for tribal nations on the Oregon-California border who have long fought to restore the river to its natural state. However, as CNN's Rachel Ramirez and the BBC's Lucy Sherriff both highlight, the restoration of salmon populations and surrounding ecosystems is "only just beginning." From the report: The removal of the four hydroelectric dams -- Iron Gate Dam, Copco Dams 1 and 2, and JC Boyle Dam -- allows the region's iconic salmon population to swim freely along the Klamath River and its tributaries, which the species have not been able to do for over a century since the dams were built. Mark Bransom, chief executive officer of the Klamath River Renewal Corporation, the nonprofit group created to oversee the project, said it was a "celebratory moment," as his staff members, conservationists, government officials and tribal members gathered and cheered on the bank of the river near where the largest of the dams, Iron Gate, once stood. [...] The Yurok Tribe in Northern California are known as the "salmon people." To them, the salmon are sacred species that are central to their culture, diet and ceremonies. As the story goes, the spirit that created the salmon also created humans and without the fish, they would cease to exist. Amy Bowers-Cordalis, a member of and general counsel for the Yurok Tribe, said seeing those dams come down meant "freedom" and the start of the river's "healing process." [...]

The utility company PacifiCorps -- a subsidiary of Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway Energy -- built the dams in the early to mid-1900s, without tribal consent, to generate electricity for parts of the growing West. But the dams severely disrupted the lifecycle of the salmon, blocking the fish from accessing their historic spawning grounds. Then there's the climate crisis: Warm water and drought-fueled water shortages in the Klamath River killed salmon eggs and young fish due to low oxygen and lack of food and allowed the spread of viruses. [...] As for the reason the dams were constructed in the first place -- electricity -- removing them won't hurt the power supply much, experts say. Even at full capacity, all four dams produced less than 2% of PacifiCorp's energy, according to the Klamath River Renewal Corporation. Up next is ramping up restoration work. Bransom said they plan to put down nearly 16 billion seeds of almost 100 native species across 2,200-acres of land in the Klamath River Basin. And after more than a century, the fish can now swim freely. Yurok's Bowers-Cordalis said seeing the river reconnected is a form of giving their land back, which is really the "ultimate reward."

Comment Encryption -- should govt have access? (Score 2) 124

> For years, tech companies have argued that encrypted messaging is crucial to maintain people's digital privacy, while law enforcement and governments have said that the technology enables illicit behaviors by hiding illegal activity.

The question comes down to do you trust the government? How much harm (to minors, those being exploited, those harmed by the crimes enabled by true privacy, etc) is worth protecting it. Then again on the other side, how much do you trust government (which can give almost unlimited funding and influence) to not abuse, hide facts, be fair, or not be intrusive and heavy handed?

Seems like a long time ago there was a war fought about invasive government and why we shouldn't trust government...

Methinks there are other ways to catch criminals without snooping on their electronic protections. People get caught all the time despite encryption... Does letting people (both the good and bad) make it harder to catch criminals-- yes. That's the point -- that legitimate activities are also protected.

This seems to be something missing in our modern society-- a balanced approach to both sides of the same issue.

‘Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom – and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech.’ – Benjamin Franklin
‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.’ – Benjamin Franklin

Comment Consider the Unhappy path... (Score 1) 235

Just my 2 cents from the conservative/libertarian and/or practical side of the house.

I'm a programmer who by trade needs to consider the unhappy path. Which people tend to forget...

There just seems something wrong about having those who are auditing you and telling you how much you owe, also writing the software that you need to submit for it. It's very standard to have outside/independent auditors for companies/business verify that everything is on the up & up. In the happy case where the government isn't a fox, or hasn't made a mistake then there's no problem. Once you get into the unhappy case where it is a fox guarding the henhouse (adverse relationship/targeting) or there's a mistake made and it's up to you to fix-- both of which may mean a very costly time on the phone (waiting/talking/arguing) or in court to fix... Well it's too late.

Having a third party witness is certainly helpful in that case.

And then reason 2.... I have a personal reason for not trusting the IRS though and why I'd worry about it... Years ago when we lived near each other, I had a friend who worked as a senior manager for the IRS program that helped process the returns-- and he shared some scary stories about how the tax code system in use was maintained by 5 *old* COBOL programmers. Later as time progress, yes those 5 started to retire... Yes, the IRS knew they needed to replace the system-- and they had tried several times with multi-million dollar contracts that had only managed to automate the processing of the 1040EZ program. When they went to be fired, the contracting company got their lobbyist friends involved and well they weren't fired. My own time in a different area of government also taught me about government waste and inefficiency.

I think the quote was a little off from Contact (1997 movie) where the genius of his day -- said "S.R. Hadden:
First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" In reality what the government does (IMO) usually costs 3-10x as much as when the commercial world does it.

So if you're ok with that type of mark up and the lobbyists and rewarding failure, and trust the IRS and government in all it does-- by all means continue to support the IRS doing both the preparing and the auditing.

Comment Re:Oh my goodness (Score 1, Interesting) 353

None of you are actually trying to understand the other's point of view.

I mean I suppose that proudly ignoring facts can be considered a point of view.

That's what we have here, one group who is more or less following scientific advice on one side, and the right wing on the other.

That's a logical fallacy -- a false dichotomy.

Sure we can divide the world into science and anti-science or similarly say "our side good, your side bad."
But you make the original posters point.

To make it more clear it's taking stupid examples at the extremes and saying that everyone on one side agrees with all the bad actors.

So you could say that *everyone* on the "bad" side agrees with this (vaccines don't work, ivermectin will save you, etc.)
And we could say that *everyone* on the "good" side agrees with Facui saying things like "I am the science" (https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/11/anthony-fauci-i-am-the-science/) or others (magazines say) who have said in essence "vaccines will end the pandemic" (in 2020 )(https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/11/vaccines-end-covid-19-pandemic-sight/617141/).

Of course like a blog post I saw much earlier in the pandemic that predicted COVID would be with us for a long time (because there was no way we could vaccinate everyone) that turned out to be right. Would that make it anti-vaccine (back in 2020) because the talking heads were saying and suggesting that vaccines would end COVID? Does wondering why (if masking & vaccines work so well) why New York and other places California that have strong mandates and high vaccination rates are still getting COVID -- make you wonder if it's really worth the lockdowns when Florida and others dont' seem to be _unarguably_ much worse because they are pushing back on _mandates_? What about science of risk mitigation? Is asking about risk vs benefit a bad thing? I thought we used that in programming & design all the time...

I mean early on we all stayed home and isolated and people didn't go to the doctor because of COVID -- and then many were dying of other things because they weren't getting their other medical conditions treated. (One example of for some the cure possibly being worse than the problem). Or how about the fact that it's apparently now OK to in New York City to deny people entry places because they don't have their papers... (I mean vaccination card)-- that sounds a little like World War II germany to me. Or what about if wondering if _madnates_ are a way to push out the "right" out of the government, their jobs, and their livelihood. A way to discriminate? That doesn't sound like a good thing to do, unless you're completely in on the right is evil (which many apparently are from the comments).
      Is it ok for me to question mandates even if I'm in favor of the vaccine being used? Which of the 2 boxes you so happily create to make it obvious that you're good and others are bad, do I belong in?

Yes people are dying of COVID. My sister-in-law is a doctor in a hospital and they recently had to post signs saying the Hospital will not do any more COVID testing (e.g. people come there when they can't get tested anywhere else) because they need to have the medical staff available for real emergencies (and staffing is reduced because many of the doctors & nurses are testing positive for COVID and quarantining).

  I also know someone who is worried about losing their job (and livelihood) because they happen to think that the "science" is being used to justify and mandate things that don't need to be mandated-- and are not going to comply with government orders...

should we only care about the lives of people on the "left" side of the equation who believe in mandates, masks, that Fauci is science, and so on?
Or is it maybe more nuanced than everyone is "on the left" believes in science and everyone else is "on the right" is dumb and there aren't any people who have positions between those extremes?

From my POV most things cannot be reduced to sound bites -- and the people who argue from the sound bites and support it are really much of the problem with today's society.
  - any data set can be made or twisted to say what you want. (& statistics can be used to tell stories: see the book how to lie with statistics)
  - Science & Data change over time
  - Generally consensus emerges (even if that consensus changes over time).

  One example of consensus, is that I think most people would agree that COVID has been politicized by both sides (e.g. there have been public figures of note on both sides that have said untrue or stupid things on both sides for political purposes).

I'd rather rely on consensus over time and larger data-sets, than false dichotomies or sound-bites to what is a complex national discussion with multiple facets.

Comment Re:Freedom of Speech and the Right to Vote (Score 1) 682

CONSERVATIVES can want multiple things, and in this case I think we do

We may want smaller government with less regulations.

We can also want fairness
  * We can decry our belief that our views are censored (in ways the other sides are not)
  * We can decry double standards
  * And we can certainly decry the “facts” — when those facts are actual interpretations of data that support a political viewpoint that differs from ours.
  * We can decry when it's OK for one side, but not OK for the other
  * etc.

Most conservatives recognize that Trump isn’t some idealized version of a conservative (whatever that is)— but he’s come so much closer to supporting things we align with than any recent alternative.

So do I want Trump to actually regulate Twitter, or other social media
In an ideal world, no I wouldn’t.

It would be preferable if that weren’t necessary.
But just like anti-discrimination laws were necessary— it’s possible that to keep the playing field fair for a maligned group that laws & regulation are needed.

Most people agree with fairness

  What conservatives have observed is that much of the media, hollywood, tech groups/companies, etc. are liberal or lean that way Whether intentional or not, that biases what they perceive as fair.

E.g. while I may not like many of the things that Trump has said and done, it is clear that the political spectrum & media on the left has been out to Impeach, Derail, & Convict the president since before he was elected and haven’t always given him anywhere close to a fair shake (if they can take it the wrong way, they will). While he says stupid things, and things I don’t agree with— I can still see how blatantly unfair much of what is said, reported, etc about him is. (And yes some of the stuff he says crosses a line, but it's all a matter of scale IMO).

The efforts to Impeach, Impugn and have a double-standard between what is allowed and forgiven on the left (Hillary Clinton Email Server, or a variety of Obama “scandals”) versus similar factors on the right (Tara Reade against Biden vs Kavanaugh coverage) makes it clear that the playing field isn’t even close to fair if you’re a conservative. From a conservative perspective, the left as a group is a much larger Bully, NameCalling, Racist group than the President of the United States.

And unfortunately as a conservative, I’m pretty convinced that the highly political left doesn’t want to live and let live— they want to take away my vote (through any means necessary) and anyone else they think is intellectually inferior to them.

So is regulation necessary? Unfortunately at times it is

And to be clear for the record— I’m pretty sure (as usual) Trump is mainly blowing steam and getting people to discuss it (rather than actually going to regulate social media companies).

Comment Re:Facts are facts! (Score 1) 122

So prove me wrong. Show me when a democrat lies about a polling location. Should be pretty easy, unless you are full of shit. Here's my proof that Republicans use voter suppression tactics:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/...
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
https://www.theguardian.com/us...
https://www.miamiherald.com/op...

Your turn sport. Put up or shut up.

Try These (and see if this counters possible confirmation bias about it's all about Voter suppression -- maybe Voter Fraud sometimes is a real thing...)

https://www.heritage.org/voter...
https://www.investors.com/poli...
https://www.washingtontimes.co...
https://nypost.com/2018/12/06/...
https://www.realclearpolitics....

And if you're willing to google and search through the positive & negative results, you'll find more...
That close elections continually happen is a real thing as well-- and if (like alot of things) the actual REALITY is much wider than what is confirmed, and proven in a court of law then there is a justification for asking things to be tightened up (even if maybe it has the side effect of suppresing voters).

So is it about Voter Suppression, or is it about Voter Fraud Suppression?
Probably depends on which side of the aisle you're on.

Given that to attend a DNC convention you're required to have Voter ID and that almost everyone does have some form of ID, I'm not sure why that "low bar" is too high to expect people voting on how we should be governed to meet.

So "put up". Thanks for the derogatory and snide tone of voice that the Left always seems to use.

Quoting one of the articles:
"Of course, if you're not looking for evidence of noncitizens voting, you're not likely to find any. And it turns out that, for the most part, nobody's looking very hard."

Comment Both (Lucas & the Mouse) might have been bette (Score 2) 562

I loved the new movie, but have heard and agree with the comments

Even as I watched the new movie, I noticed “that’s the cantina scene”, “that’s the new yoda”, “really? the death star again?” They dealt with it with humor, “there’s always a way to blow it up”, but it’s a rehash of story & themes from Episodes IV & V.

I liked the *story line* of Episodes I-III— they filled in the story of how Anakin turned to the dark-side. Where Lucas messed it up was everywhere else, directing, script, CGI, lack of directing, over-the-top characters (jar-jar binks), etc., etc.; probably because no one could tell the “famous in his time” person, that all important word. “Nooooooooo!”.

What I am and will be curious about is what we might have gotten if Lucas had given the story line (and then gotten out of the way). Let Kasdan (Empire Strikes Back & Force Awakens) write the script, and Abrams direct — e.g. let the people who are good (still) at telling the story tell the story, while Lucas provides the story-arc, the richness of the ideas that gave us the back-story and the awesome episodes IV-V-and maybe (VI).

It just **might** have been awesome.

Now, I just have to hope that as a friend quipped, Episode VIII is not named, “The First Order Strikes Back”

Slashdot Top Deals

HEAD CRASH!! FILES LOST!! Details at 11.

Working...