Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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! ×

Comment Re:What does this have to do with tech? (Score 1) 120

I don't think there is a natural mechanism to force birth control on humans. I am under the impression that these people want some other entity culling billions of people somehow. Perhaps a world government or something?

No, I think s/he meant that we can limit population ourselves or have a crash forced on us. There doesn't seem to be any plausible way that humans will take on limiting population themselves. Ergo, etc. Presumably, you reject the premise. So, population keeps growing until ...?

Comment Re:There is a legitimate dispute (Score 1) 534

Widespread "Consensus" is not the measure of scientific fact; if it were, we'd all still believe that the Earth is flat, etc.

There are legitimate criticisms about the climate models, the interpretations of measurements, and even the very way in which certain mathematical principles are applied. Like it or not, there is a real dispute, and the side that has the support of the Taxman and the liberal Hollywood elite should really be suspect.

Widespread consensus offers a qualitative measure of how the issue is playing out amongst those who are well-informed. The "legitimate criticisms" about the models have somehow not persuaded them that the issue is still being pulled equally in opposite directions. The "interpretation of measurements" question is apparently not enough of a conundrum to confound the conclusion that the steady absoption of energy by the climate system can be roughly quantified, and that this is consistent with a range of observations, from melting ice to changing ocean chemistry. We're to understand that there is still some room for discussion on the matter of climate sensitivity, but it likely falls within a range that suggests the problem is extremely urgent and deadly serious.

Such a "consensus" doesn't settle the question, but it tells us that the scientific community has run out of alternative hypotheses that fit the data, or which cast significant doubt on which conclusions to draw regarding causes. It doesn't mean you are not allowed to pose a new hypothesis that fits the data.

Comment Re:BS (Score 2) 534

Your analogy is wrong. You believe that somehow "Global" warming only impacts America? You must similarly believe that the US is the only ones that can, and need to, somehow solve the problem. I have no idea how you ignore China, India, Pakistan, and Russia, and quite frankly the majority of what we call "Developing Nations" (most of the planet)

So, your attitude is that the US should just let someone else solve the problem, and then buy the next generation of reactors, solar panels, etc, from them? Maybe we should do that with other industries, as well? After all, they take a lot of effort. Let someone else design new cell phones and computer chips. Let someone else develop new materials for insulation, energy distribution, and industrial processes. Let someone else conduct research on the terrestrial ecosystem.

... who have been increasing pollutants and industrialization over the same time the West has done the opposite.

The West has not reduced pollution, we have simply reduced the rate at which we are adding pollution.

Comment Re: Going to be dead on arrival (Score 1) 106

1. Responding as though I meant literally causing the planet earth to cease to exist is hyperbole. A mass extinction taking major limbs of the "tree of life" is figuratively destroying the planet. Grow up. And, what do you mean by "mitigation"? You mean shoring up levees and moving out of low-lying areas? That doesn't help with the problem of collapsing economies when agricultural output starts dropping. As I undedrstand it, even the Paris scenarios for reduced emissions have a hidden assumption that we'll find a way to suck existing carbon out of the atmosphere. Or is that what you meant by mitigation -- dumping iron in the oceans, or sulphur in the atmosphere, because it's "cheaper" than making an effort to deal with the source of the problem?
2. There's "cheap" in money, and cheap in sustainability. Perhaps solar electrolysis would be the latter, for now. Seems worth it to foster some incentives to drive it towards the former, by creating a market.
3. The point of talking about hydrogen is that hydrocarbons are out. Hydrogen has some things going for it. Comparing energy density alone misses some important criteria. That's what I was getting at. If you want fission everywhere, then that would at least be another possible source of the energy for electrolysis.
4. Moving from fossil fuels to non-fossil fuels is a step forward, whether it's wind, solar, nuclear, or whatever. I agree that a cowardly retreat to fossil fuels is like saying "someone else please take over the markets of the future."

Comment Re: Going to be dead on arrival (Score 1) 106

But propane requires extraction, refining, and transport, which adds to the cost. Plus, fossil fuels destroy your planet, which some consider a negative. It's at least an external cost, which a fair market would add to the price at the pump.

Meanwhile, if you generate the hydrogen electrolytically via solar or wind power, and release the oxygen byproducts into the atmosphere, the cost (after capital expenses) is low, there is zero net waste in consumption, and you might cut the transport distance considerably, or completely.

Comment Re:Oh drop it already (Score 0) 822

after all, you'll be considered a sexist just for having (R) by your name, no matter your history, intentions, or statements.

Having an (R) next to your name implies something about your history, intentions, and statements, regarding sexism, climate, same-sex marriage, policing, immigration, taxation, etc. One could conceivablhy work around it by demonstrating repeatedly that one actually had attitudes about these things that weren't consistent with R policies, but it takes more than a binder full of women to achieve that. A binder fuill of women says that you made an effort to avoid merely the appearance of sexism, because you had no history that would speak for itself, and were willing to have an R next to your name, implying that you're fine with being assoicated with a group that typically has nothing other than empty gestures like binders full of women to offer, rather than an actual history. Statements like "nobody has more respect for women than I do" sound hollow until you demonstrate that it's true.

Comment Re:More condoms less climate change (Score 1) 180

Maybe if you read the article, seeing as how it does not claim "all of them"

"Human activity, including habitat loss, wildlife trade, pollution and climate change contributed to the declines."

And since when was the BBC World News a clickbait site? Seriously you make fucking ridiculous claims for someone who obviously never even bothered to learn anything more then they think they know.

You're latching onto the word "contributed" as though it was obviously intended to mean that human activity wasn't the dominant factor. Yet the obvious premise is that human activity is the dominant factor. One would need some dramatic new information to shift the story away from humans. Looks like it's you making the fucking ridiculous claims.

Comment Re:More condoms less climate change (Score 2) 180

What about the fact that species die out all the time? Like before we were here? Actually, some of them dying out are the reason we are here now! It happens. It will happen to us. It will suck when it is our turn, but it will still happen.

There have been long periods in evolutionary history where individual species are occassionally dying out, new ones are occasionally emerging, and the ecosystem is relatively stable.

What's being suggested here is something else. The idea is that we're looking at a mass extinction event, marked by a sudden, unstable transition in the ecosystem, where major chunks of the tree of life are wiped out. There's no reason to assume that we're on the part of the tree that survives, but if some humans do come thorugh this, they will find themselves in a world where much of what we think of as "nature" is gone -- the natural world that has sustained us, and, beyond that, which has been the essense of life, the thing in mind when we speak of "life".

Comment Re:So glad you like it (Score 1) 1042

It was meant to sound humorous. I take it back. Though I do love California.

The point was that the market (I didn't say it was free) has somehow rated floorspace in California more highly. So, complaining about the relative cost of floorspace must miss something (not saying what) that the market has priced in.

Comment Re:There really is no free lunch, I wish there wer (Score 1) 1042

look at California versus Texas over the last 20 years. Due to T&C costs, companies have moved from California to Texas. Unemployment is now 50% higher in California. The average income in Texas buys a house two and half times larger than California.

Sure, but you have to live in Texas. Here's another way to say it: it's worth having a house half the size to be able to live in California.

Comment Re:Stupid (Score 1) 1042

Yep sandboxed apps never break out of their sandboxes, and anything in a VM always stays inside that VM and always plays by the totally bug free rules.

So you think breaking out of a small simulation into a bigger simulation would satisfy? It would certainly be interesting, but, if there are billionaires in the bigger sim, I guess they'd soon be saying, "No ... I meant break out completely." And then you'd be back to facing the original question: does it make sense to imagine a simulated entity having existence outside the simulation?

In The Matrix, the simulation was something experienced by entities outside the simulation. That's a factor on which the metaphisics of "breaking out" depends. Thus, the question is whether, if this is a simulation, are we participating from outside, or entirely simulated?

Do video-game characters have life outside the game? You could say so, in that they have life in our minds. No, it's more than that; they have animate energy in the universe. But if one of them wanted to join our world as a regular individual human, there'd be a problem. You'd want to explain to them, "here's your relationship to what we think of as The World Outside Your World." Similarly, we'd need someone in TWOOW to (start to) explain the corresponding relationship to us.

Maybe it's simulations all the way up?

Comment Re:Stop breeding already (Score 1) 150

The current population of human beings on this planet is unsustainable.

If that were true, then wouldn't the population be decreasing instead of increasing? It's like saying you are in a plane and you slow down to below stall speed and say the lift generated by the wings cannot sustain the weight of the plane yet the plane continues to fly. Until populations decrease, all the evidence shows that the population is sustainable.

Until you hit the ground, all the evidence shows that you can fly.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every little picofarad has a nanohenry all its own. -- Don Vonada