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

 



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

Comment the component is not the system (Score 1) 483

And that, I think, is fair enough, as there is no real difference between the "individual" and "society", as ideological categories, because we are always both, we are all individuals and we all live in society and are part of social institutions.

And there's no real difference between a "spark plug" and an "automobile," because a spark plug is part of both, it is an individual spark plug and it also lives in an automobile and is part of automobile systems.

A society is composed of individuals, but a society and an individual are not the same thing.

Comment Re:Boeing, Sierra Nevada, and SpaceX all delayed. (Score 1) 39

...there's no chance that Dream Chaser will be ready before the others. Nor will Blue Origin.

well, BO's new shep. capsule will not work for orbital work. As such, they are not in the running on this.

Blue Origin has announced follow-on to the New Shepard spacecraft, the "New Glenn", which will be designed for orbit: http://www.space.com/34034-blu...

However, I think the original poster is correct: New Glenn is not anticipated to be operational on a fast enough schedule for space station crew launch, which needs a vehicle in 2018.

Comment Um, so? (Score 5, Insightful) 267

Uh, this is the most uninteresting news ever. So, you're saying that Apple has put a lot of its spare cash into government bonds, which pay out the usual government bond interest; which are actually historically relatively low rates compared to other interest rates. This is interesting why, exactly?

Comment The Garbage Dumpster Argument [Re:Climate chan...] (Score 3, Informative) 333

Ah, the garbage dumpster argument: pile enough garbage up, and tell the reader somewhere in the dumpster one argument might be real; you need to wade through all the garbage to find it.

I don't have time to wade through all the garbage. I'll go with the three strikes you're out approach: if your first three arguments aren't convincing, I'll stop there.

There are lots of reasons I am skeptical of this: 1. A primary method of convincing others is to ridicule and insult them. Notice the responses and downvotes this post will get.

Not relevant.

2. We have seen vastly higher CO2 levels in planetary history

Yep. And, you know what? All of those higher CO2 levels were associated with higher global temperatures! That's not evidence against the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming-- it's evidence for the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming

and right now we are seeing what is actually all time lows..

Nope. Current levels are higher than it's ever been for as long as we can measure the CO2 record from ice cores, well over a million years. I think you're talking about really long ago. In that you'd be correct: carbon dioxide levels were higher before the Pleistocene. These were also, however, times when the Earth didn't have an ice cap or glaciers. So, again: this isn't evidence against the effect of carbon dioxide on climate-- it's evidence for it.

We should expect CO2 increases and, in fact, hope for them as going much below 300 ppm would see the beginning of a massive plant die off - there's a reason commercial greenhouses pump CO2 into their facilities.

Slightly misleading. Carbon dioxide increases plant growth-- but only in environments in which CO2 is the limiting resource, not other nutrients, water, or sunlight. In a greenhouse, where you make sure that the temperature, nutrients, and water are all optimal, sure, it's worth adding CO2. Outside, though, it's only one effect among many.

3. The temperature change we are seeing now is far from unusual, we've seen similar changes in both rate and magnitude before. In fact, what we are seeing now does not stand out from background noise.

Doesn't stand out from the background... over tens of millions of years. Even so, actually, the current rate of warming is pretty exceptional. It does, however, stand out from the background over the period in which we have good measurements of both temperature and of all the other forcing factors, such a solar irradiance. So: no.

Comment Re:It's like I said the other day - if San Francis (Score 1) 333

This reminds me of something I mentioned here on Slashdot just the other day. Though it's not looking like San Francisco will really be underwater by 2020,

Correct. San Francisco is very hilly. They may have to elevate the freeway, but most of it will be fine.

http://www.floodmap.net/Elevat...

Comment Re:can we now get some throttling for netflix? (Score 1) 105

Or maybe your ISP could upgrade the lines to handle the bandwidth. No problems in my area, I've never seen less than half the advertised bandwidth during any time of the day.

Wow, it's a pretty sad state of society when people brag that the bandwidth they are getting is "only" half of what it had been advertised as.

Comment Up and down [Re:Dollar not depressed] (Score 1) 235

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Apparently you don't. Because in Canada, 1CAD=0.72USD, and 1CAD=0.69EUR, 1CAD=0.59GBP You figure out that 30% depression works in yet?

Up and down. The Canadian dollar was $(US) 0.69 in 2000, it's $(US) 0.744 now-- no long term difference.

30% down if you pick the right points.

Comment Re:How science is done. (Score 1) 235

Since you don't seem to know anything about climate science, it doesn't do much good to reread your reply.
The greenhouse effect, of course, has been known for well over a century, but the modern global climate model incorporating numerical integration was Manabe and Wetherald, 1967. But, of course, since you dismiss all climate scientists, you dismiss that, I suppose, along with all the other work ever done. In fact, you can dismiss every paper! They're all done by " 'only a small subset of "climate scientists'". Thousands of them! Decades of Journal of Geophysical Research- Atmospheres: every single paper written by that 'small subset.' That "small subset" is so incredibly prolific-- they're simply amazing, that small subset; not only have they written every single paper on climate science for almost fifty years, they've taken over the whole of atmospheric science in America, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Australia.

Slashdot Top Deals

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Working...