Slashdot Mirror

Exactly. In an ideal world, I would love to bike to work, and have tried it off and on in the past, but:

1) Safety - I'm not hugely risk averse, but cycling injuries seem to be more a question of when than if, and minor mishaps that would be inconsequential in a car can easily be catastrophic on a bicycle. Driver blindness to bicycles and motorcycles is a real thing, and the potential jeopardy is multiplied when a small miscalculation can send you flying through the air.
2) Weather - Sometimes the temperature difference between morning and evening can vary by +/-20F, or more. That's to say nothing of precipitation, which requires its own set of accommodations, preparations, and adaptability. Storms are often unpredictable in spring and summer months, and braking is often unpredictable in wet weather.
3) Hygiene - Workplace showers, where they exist, are often contested during the time they're most needed, and it seems like there's always mildew, slow-draining basins, or something else to make me regret my decision to use them. Also I don't want to take 2-3 showers every day, especially in the winter when dry skin is already an issue.
4) Time - I average about 12MPH on bike, and 23MPH by car, including time stopped at lights or in traffic.
5) Mechanical Issues - Flat tires are an inevitability of biking, and chain derailments are a close second. It's less of an issue to deal with them when I'm out on a weekend ride, but when I'm on a schedule it's just one more thing I need to prepare and allow time for.

True, I have been able to appreciate some stunning mornings with beautiful weather, but I've also frozen my arse off, narrowly avoided harrowing collisions, replaced brand new inner tubes twice on the same day, been utterly drenched and splashed with filthy road water, gotten stuck in a freak snowstorm, had to ride home with no headlight in the dark from a dead battery (both dangerous and illegal where I lived), and broken a pedal resulting in smashing my nuts on the top tube and walking my bike the better part of 5 miles home. It's just not worth it to me.

It is funny how the superior Europeans ignore reality. Demand in Europe for fur is very high: https://www.theguardian.com/fa...

You know what also is going up in Europe? Emissions rose in both 2017: https://planetsave.com/2018/05... and will again in 2018: https://www.thedailystar.net/w...

Emissions going up now that Europe is letting all the immigrants in. Populations are rising, consuming increases.

Emissions are rising in EU. In 2017: https://planetsave.com/2018/05... and will again in 2018: https://www.thedailystar.net/w...

Europe talks a good game, but has very little action. They do like to sign fancy "accords" and have meetings about it though.

Yeah, reality doesn't matter since they're all still signed on to the Paris Accord.

Emissions are rising in EU. In 2017: https://planetsave.com/2018/05... and will again in 2018: https://www.thedailystar.net/w...

Europe talks a good game, but has very little action. They do like to sign fancy "accords" and have meetings about it though.

It is funny how the superior Europeans ignore reality. Demand in Europe for fur is very high: https://www.theguardian.com/fa...

You know what also is going up in Europe? Emissions rose in both 2017: https://planetsave.com/2018/05... and will again in 2018: https://www.thedailystar.net/w...

You could still use the land around for solar (which most do already anyway) , and you can make greenhouse glass that contains a translucent solar power material to gain some energy from it - probably not as efficient as full panels but close enough to make the project worthwhile, not to mention you would have a lot more surface area generating electricity from a dome than just panels on a roof.

http://planetsave.com/2013/03/...

Although there has long been a connection between math and physics, as people dig further into the math they are finding some unexpected things, and ways to better understand, simplify, or extend the equations.

Mathematicians Link Knot Theory to Physics
A Jewel at the Heart of Quantum Physics

There are a number of seemingly promising developments out there that are sharpening the investigative tools as well as providing interesting new lines of investigation, as well as new data to chew on.

Spooky Connection: Wormholes and the Quantum World
Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time
Schrodinger’s ‘Kitten’? Large-Scale Quantum Entanglement Achieved By Two Physics Labs

String theorists squeeze nine dimensions into three
New work gives credence to theory of universe as a hologram

Now we are developing a growing understanding of the interplay between biology and physics.

Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature?

Who knows where things may lead next? Of course people should be careful in performing experiments.

Collapse of the universe is closer than ever before

Go fuck yourself.

http://planetsave.com/2011/12/10/newest-epa-report-confirms-fracking-fluids-contaminating-pavillion-wyoming-water-supply/

“The presence of synthetic compounds such as glycol ethersand the assortment of other organic components is explained as the result of direct mixing of hydraulic fracturing fluids with ground water in the Pavillion gas field”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fracking-linked-water-contamination-federal-agency

We should ask why this story is summarized with sociological mumbo-jumbo. I've been here a while now and I can't recall ever seeing a submission quite like that. This same story has been written in a comprehensible manner by many others. Some examples:

Public Apathy Over Climate Change Unrelated To Scientific Literacy
Culture splits climate views, not science smarts
Climate skeptics know their stuff

Most everyone else managed to express the central point clearly; the claim that AGW sceptics are comparatively ignorant is false. Yet, here we are at Slashdot with a paragraph full of obtuse weasel words that manages to avoid conveying much of anything.

Perhaps it's just that certain folks aren't happy with the otherwise obvious conclusion and can't bring themselves to expose it. Better to have not posted the story at all.

Good list of denier arguments and the scientific response:

http://planetsave.com/2010/08/13/119-one-liners-to-respond-to-climate-science-myths/

There is nothing new about Iron Seeding, except the people who decry it as something that will destroy our oceans and strip it of oxygen.

This is simply Iron Seeding from a biological standpoint.

In fact, Iron Seeding is something we probably should be doing to help sequester carbon.

Recent url of interest here.

I agree 100% about the sharks. DARPA could not have come up with a better way to help ensure the extinction of sharks, because now every country that thinks they have something to worry about will be catching and killing as many sharks as they can find, and the species is already heavily fished and at risk.

Second, he did a further analysis of a practical mechanism to introduce SO2 into the upper atmosphere. I think he settled on balloons or artillery shells, and the cost was something like tens of billions of dollars a year. Since the stuff only stays up there for months, it would be a reoccuring cost.

Finally, it has the unpleasant side effect (per earlier replies) of raining down on the planet in the form of acid rain. Since the ocean is already getting more acidic due to increased CO2 levels (which combined with water get you carbonic acid-i.e. soda water), this might be a fatal drawback. The one thing worse than global warming is an oxygen deprived ocean, which ironically leads to sulfur coming back up as hydrogen sulfide (which at least once killed over 90% of the life on earth during a particularly spectacular episode of runaway global warming called the "Great Dying.")

Anyway, we probably won't have time or money to develop or impliment such a idea (nor another idea using a space shade to partially block the sun hitting the earth) because of abrupt climate change: when the climate is forced, it doesn't respond smoothly and gradually. Instead, proof in the form of ice core samples show that the climate at first resists changing, then abruptly changes to another stable state. In other words, it is predictable that within a decade or two our climate will abruptly change from the mild Holocene of the last ten thousand years, to a hotter dryer climate that has resulted in mass extinctions many times in the past. Here is a link to an article I wrote if you want a further explanation http://www.planetsave.com/ps_mambo/Independent_New s/Science/Abrupt_climate_change_predicted_within_2 0_years_200609117794/

We won't have the resources to launch SO2 into the upper atmosphere, particularly repeatedly, especially if it didn't make an immediate dramatic difference. Furthermore, we aren't going to pull the hammer back by getting an "SO2" program all ready to pull the trigger if things get really bad. Instead, typically we'll wait until catastrophe hits, then we'll be looking for the silver bullet yesterday. Neither a SO2 program, or the space shade program will be seriously on track until after the resources are unavailable. Any resources will be used up for consequence management, not to institute some expensive technologically spacious global warming pie-in-the-sky program that won't have immediate results for years and years.

On the other hand, I have an alternate suggestion (the advantage is it wouldn't need a great deal of resources, a large team of scientists, or a great deal of time to impliment):

It is unreasonable to expect that mankind will so dramatically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) fast enough to avoid abrupt climate change. A fast growing population combined with growing per capita energy use, plus trillions of dollars in fossil fuel infrastruction means we are on track to double our CO2 emissions by 2050.

Furthermore, a warming earth means that carbon sinks will become carbon emitters bigtime. In other words, it is predictable that soon the earth will start emitting far more GHG than humans, at the same time it is able to absorb less of mankind's CO2 pollution. Nature absorbs about half of mankind's 8 billion tons of CO2 emitted each year. By 2030 it is predicted that nature will only be able to absorb 2.7 billion tons a year.

The only solution for global warming is to remove the CO2 from the air after it has been emitted. I suggest using genetic engineering to improve nature's ability to absorb CO2. Perhaps seeding a GMO into the ocean.

Build a better car that doesn't guzzle gas, and the oil industry will beat a path to your door, destroy the car, and kill you. Adios, Dude!

Inventor of the air-powered car receives death threats. 3 mins to refill at compressed-air pumps found at any gas station, does 130km/h, and costs about 1c/km to run. Saw a video of one in action, seemed very quiet and acceleration not too bad.

Phillip.

japan is actually a large reclaimer of land, they create it from trash then add top soil, or bring in the eingineers to pump away the water and dam it.

recent news on the matter

Actually, it is probably at least as hard to do the things you describe by GM as by selective breeding. Genes don't exist in isolation, they interact.

http://www.planetsave.com/ViewStory.asp?ID=2002.

GM doesn't mean changing one protein and seeing what happens. You can change a lot of them at a time. It is that with current techniques, scientists know little what they are doing. In time, you will be able to grow 10 arms, or have "GM viagra". It might happen in the next decade or two.

GM opens the doors to making profound changes to life on this planet. It also opens the same door to possible (intentional?) mistakes (weapons?).