Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: nas.edu

Stories and comments across the archive that link to nas.edu.

Comments · 54

  1. CO2 |= ozone depletion by xX_sticky_Xx · · Score: 3, Informative · on Antarctic Ozone Hole Leveling Off

    CO2 is responsible for global warming, not ozone depletion.

    CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and some other gases like halon(tm?) are responsible for the thinning ozone. Most of these gases have been banned under the Montreal protocol for some years now, but because they are largely inert they can rise far into the stratosphere (which takes them quite a few years) where they do their damage. What happens up there is that the suns intense UV rays break the CFC molecules up and the chlorine ends up binding with an oxygen atom from the ozone. The actual reaction is here

    CO2, on the other hand, absorbs infrared radiation from the earth reradiated from sunlight and keeps the heat in the atmosphere. It basically acts like a big blanket. CO2 is what the Kyoto Protocol is trying to limit.

  2. Re:Why America only? by nachoworld · · Score: 2 · on Educational Consortium Will Control .edu Domains
    There are a wide variety of .edu domains that are not US 4 year universities. Here are just a few examples. As you can see from the last examples, some of them don't even have to do with school. If you're crafty enough you can get a .edu by saying that you have some redeeming academic value.

    ---
  3. Re:Budget Problems by DHartung · · Score: 2 · on NEAR Touches Down on Eros

    viadd wrote:
    NEAR is a 'faster better cheaper' mission. The choice is not between a bunch of 'FBC' missions and a bunch of Battlestar Galactica class missions. The choice is between several FBC missions a year, vs. one Galactica per decade. NASA would not have spent the billions of dollars a Galileo type probe costs in order to explore an insignificant asteroid.

    I fully agree with this. faster-better-cheaper means more missions for the bucks. (Now, if they'd only have a little more flexibility on the budget, we could keep Pluto-Kuiper Express.)

    And they certainly wouldn't have been receptive to a scientist saying, "Hey! let's land this baby on an asteroid and see what happens."

    This, however, isn't true. Indeed, they'd rather do an "orderly disposal" of a probe like Galileo than just shut it off, because at least a controlled disposal allows the opportunity for some science to be done. (The solar-system-exiting vehicles like Pioneer ... which may have at last gone quiet ... were kept alive because they could still do science just by reporting their position.) Last year a team studied Galileo's options, based on a collision with Jupiter or one of her four major satellites, with consideration of UN Outer Space Treaty prohibitions against accidental transfer of Earth organisms to those bodies. So far, though, they apparently haven't decided what to do.
    ----

  4. Re:Do you drink? by SeanNi · · Score: 1 · on Carl Sagan Was a Secret Pot Smoker
    Yeah, alcohol is pretty bad. I don't drink; never have.

    Ok... at least you're not a hypocrite. This is good... I applaud you.

    Of course, the "myth" that alcohol is worse than dope has very little "proof," unless you believe the b@st@rds at newscientist.com. I find their "new" science almost as silly as some religions. It seems that the same would apply to the pompous new book from the Lindesmith Center ("Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts"). It is notable that this "medical" book has only received crital acclaim from such magazines a "Rolling Stones." Even the supposed medical virtues of the drug are hotly contested, and there is currently much more scientific evidence to the contrary.

    Talk ... talk ... talk ... talk ... talk ... talk. What does it mean? I have yet to see anything in there that isn't subjective to the extreme, sorry.

    Currently there are no medical institutions in the United States that recognize any medical benefits of smoked marijuana.

    Ah! Now we're getting somewhere! At least this is somewhat possibly backed-up. Unfortunately, it's patently false. According to the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences,
    "the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range tolerated for other medications. Thus, the safety issues associated with marijuana do not preclude some medical uses."
    -- Summary and Conclusions, p.125


    Also, claims that legalization of this and other drugs will result in lower crime are completely unsubstantiated. In fact, those countries (such as the Netherlands) that have experimented with such legalization policies are now re-thinking their policies.

    Proof? Besides, let's assume this is true. The US government puts a lot of pressure on foreign governments. Are they necessarily "re-thinking their policies" because of honest health risks, or because of political pressure and other unrelated causes? Next!

    Crime rates and addiction cases have drastically risen as a result of legalization in these areas. Great Britain, Sweden and Egypt have also experimented with legalization policies. They were forced to abandon such politics in the face of remarkable rise in crime and substance abuse.

    Ummm... which means? Are you sure there was such a link between "crime and substance"? You can say wishy-washy things all you like. I want a leetle bit more. Oh, and those "experiments" were more of a thoughtful glance, followed by cold feet, than anything else.

    Earlier this century Opium was legalized in China, resulting in 90 million addicts which took 50 years to rectify. Similar things have gone on in Thailand and Iran, which are still struggling to fix the situation.

    Huh? Last time I checked, we were talking about Marijuana, not Opium. Big difference, kiddo! Maybe that's why you're so scared... you think we're talking about Opium! Wake up! We're not.

    In April, 1994 21 major European cities formed a coalition against drugs, an acknowledgment that legalization has failed.

    Ummmmmmmm.................. how do you get that? I've decided to form a coalition with my friend against cottage cheese. Therefore, cottage cheese must be bad for you! Sorry... no link between A and B here!

    Other countries, particularly in the Middle East and Orient, exact a high price for drug trafficking; and such enjoy a relative freedom from the plague of drug abuse and crime. This, may I add, is NEVER mentioned by legalization proponents.

    Oooh, oooh! This is gonna be fun! 'Cause I can tell one thing right away. You've never, ever lived over there, hmmm? Guess what? I lived in the Middle East for 3 years earlier this decade, and I honestly think that pro-marijuana spokespeople should spotlight these countries! Because guess what? They exonerate almost every single one of their arguments! Why? Simple. Your claim that they "enjoy a relative freedom from the plague of drug abuse" is flat-out, plain wrong! Some of those countries have the highest per-capita use of marijuana and related drugs in the world! Ok, so I can't back that up. I'm sure I could, except that official figures aren't available. Why? Because officially, the "problem" doesn't exist! Officially, there is no drug use whatsoever in those countries. But go live there for a while. See the real reality, not the official reality. See the drugs everywhere. Despite penalties of death, in some cases, for mere posession. Prohibition simply doesn't work!!!. And you're right about one thing. There's no drug-related crime. But this is not, as the government would have you think, because there is drug use... oh, trust me -- there is. But simply that it's done responsibly, in private (it has to be!)... it simply doesn't cause crime! There. Is. No. Relation. Seriously, it SHOULD be "mentioned by legalization proponents."

    Since the 1970's over 10,500 studies have been conducted showing the harmful consequences of Marijuana use. "Newscience" and "NORML" don't want you to know that. They'd rather ignore the bulk of scientific evidence presented against their case.

    Political, political, political. "Oh! We're the government! We think that marijuana is bad. If you want your funding, you think it's bad, too, don't you?"

    They'd rather enjoy their blunts legally, and pay less. They don't particularly care that history has shown their case completely irrational. No, to them Amdsterdam is a complete success story. Look at the handful of good things that have come of it. Of course, we won't mention the millions of nightmares it's caused... that's all irrelevant anyway. 'Long as we get our high."

    Umm... nightmares? What nightmares, praytell?

    ell, if you want me to post more references for my numbers here, I'd be pleased to do so.

    Not debating a single one of your numbers here. Good ol' Samuel Clemens... "Lies, damn lies, and statistics..."
    --
    - Sean