Slashdot Mirror


Galapagos Island Volcano Erupts After 33 Years, Threatening Fragile Ecosystem

An anonymous reader writes: Wolf volcano in the Galapagos islands has erupted for the first time in more than 30 years, sending lava flowing down its slopes and potentially threatening the world's only colony of pink iguanas. The Galapagos National Park says that currently there is no risk to tourism operations, but the Environment Ministry is notifying tourist operators to take precautions. A tourist boat passing by took an amazing picture of the eruption.

186 comments

  1. A link to a broken facebook page.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Doesn't this place have editors?

    1. Re:A link to a broken facebook page.. by sanosuke001 · · Score: 1

      It's not public; you need to log in to see it

      --
      -SaNo
    2. Re:A link to a broken facebook page.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahahahaha.

    3. Re:A link to a broken facebook page.. by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      A facebook login, that would be something the lobotomites who use facebook have?

    4. Re:A link to a broken facebook page.. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Home come Google doesn't have a Facebook login, yet?

      I feel they should index the page in search results and make the image available from the Cache.

    5. Re:A link to a broken facebook page.. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      So like the AC said, it's a broken Facebook page.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    6. Re:A link to a broken facebook page.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook, ugh. The genius thought "Hey, let's put the entire internet behind a walled garden!" And the world complied. Dumbed down enough yet, fellows?

    7. Re:A link to a broken facebook page.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. But I blame global warming for the volcano. In fact, I'm applying for a $50,000 grant so I can vacation, I mean study, the Galapagos.

    8. Re:A link to a broken facebook page.. by jae471 · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's a model that works. "200 Free hours on AOL!"

  2. Facebook blocking picture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave it facebook to then block the photo.

  3. "This content is currently unavailable" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seriously, why does it even have to be explained that it is not a good idea to link to facebook. ?

  4. Photo? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a freakin' volcano erupting and all we get is a Reuters article without any photo and a link to lame-ass Facebook which doesn't even work?

    1. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 0

      Or you could go to the Tour Facebook page and see more information. Sorry for not giving you everything on a silver platter.

    2. Re:Photo? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      This is what I get:

      Sorry, this page isn't available
      The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed.

    3. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I get those pages fine. Where are you browsing from and what browser are you using?

    4. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Found the problem, you have to be logged in to Facebook to see it. Or you could Google it.

    5. Re:Photo? by rstanley · · Score: 1

      Not everyone is on Facebook! I am NOT and proud of it!

      NO photo, article, etc... should be linked to on /. unless it is fully available to EVERYONE!!!

    6. Re:Photo? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      Same here. Facebook is not the Web. Requiring someone to be on Facebook to access your content is just stupid.

    7. Re:Photo? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems the problem is that I don't have a Facebook account. If you call that a problem.

      Shame on samzenpus for thinking everyone is a lemming, especially on Slashdot.

    8. Re:Photo? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Stamped steel, not silver.

    9. Re: Photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or you could just swallow you guff, and subscribe to it, just to see the items. Some of you must have doubled your scores just to get a pencil. The link works fine, picture is neat, you know how to use a phone, now use your brain.

    10. Re: Photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    11. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 0

      Good for you. Then don't click Facebook links. It is available to everyone just not in the way you want it available.

    12. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Then don't click on Facebook links.

    13. Re:Photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! In fact, I wrote a blog post about exactly this point:

      file:///mnt/data/website/blog/2014/11/06/on_linking.html

    14. Re:Photo? by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I hate Facebook, too. Never got an account and warned all my friends it's a bad idea to.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    15. Re:Photo? by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      And use NoScript and Ghostery, too.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    16. Re: Photo? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Or I could treat content hidden behind a curtain as invisible, which to me, this is.

      Fuck it, if they wanted to share they'd have posted it somewhere people could see it. Their choice.

    17. Re:Photo? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I love your assumption that everybody uses this thing called Facebook. Here's a hint for you: Several billion people don't.

      It's ok, the rest of the Internet mostly works.

    18. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      If you are not on Facebook then don't click Facebook links and whine about it not working. Facebook works for Facebook users.

    19. Re:Photo? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I had a facebook account up until 3 years ago. It got to be so obnoxious and constant source of Spam that I deleted it. The only thing I've ever found to be a bigger waste of time than playing Solitaire.

    20. Re:Photo? by Cederic · · Score: 2

      I'm just confused about people deep-linking walled off content. It's fucking pointless. It's a bit like me offering you this awesome picture of Mel Gibson riding a motorbike with a chipmunk balanced on the handlebars:
      file:///home/cederic/pictures/awesome/mel/motorbike-chipmunk.png

      Awesome, isn't it?

    21. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      The difference is that there is no free way to get access to that content though there is for Facebook.

    22. Re:Photo? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I've got a better idea, don't use facebook links. What kind of mind-wave uses facebook for crap like that? Oh I know, the same kind that liked "aol keywords."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    23. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      What kind of mind-wave uses facebook for crap like that?

      Someone with a Facebook page?

      A tour operator with a Facebook page posted photos on Facebook and it was linked to by someone else. Where do you think they should have been posted?

    24. Re:Photo? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Someone with a Facebook page?

      Well, people used to joke that cancer was killing the internet, now it appears that people are promoting it. It's okay for some I guess, there's always the possibility of mutant powers from it.

      Where do you think they should have been posted?

      Oh I don't know, how about the tour operators website?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    25. Re:Photo? by v1 · · Score: 1

      There's nothing "free" about getting ads and spam thrown at you. If advertisement was free, they wouldn't charge you to do it.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    26. Re:Photo? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Sorry for not giving you everything on a silver platter.

      Apology accepted however, your link is still broken.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    27. Re: Photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a part of the problem. Posting things here shouldn't require a 3rd party log in. Articles like this break the internet.

    28. Re:Photo? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Shame on samzenpus for thinking everyone is a lemming, especially on Slashdot.

      Facebook has 1.44billion active accounts and that includes countries which have no access to the internet. Given the current stats of the number of people around the world who are connected it stands to reason that someone in the western society would have a Facebook account even if they don't actively use it.

      Samzenpus wasn't thinking anything, he was relying on statistics and surprisingly many of us see the photo just fine.

    29. Re:Photo? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why do you add "friends" that spam you?

    30. Re:Photo? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      NO photo, article, etc... should be linked to on /. unless it is fully available to EVERYONE!!!

      I use the Lynx browser you insensitive clod.

    31. Re:Photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      but no one worth knowing does

    32. Re:Photo? by aevan · · Score: 1

      Sure there is, email him for the file, remember to reply for confirmation, fill out all your personal data, and he can mail you a floppy with it. Just requires giving up personal data and a few more hoops than say, a publicly viewable website that doesn't require making an account.

    33. Re:Photo? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      You should feel right at home then, seeing as how you were shat out of some poor woman's ass.

    34. Re:Photo? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      If you killed yourself, you'd be a happier, more well-adjusted person. Try it! PLEASE!

    35. Re:Photo? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Well, I hate your assumption that anyone gives two fucks about your self-centered opinion. The Internet would be a far better place if you were banned for life. Or better yet, banned from life.

    36. Re: Photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or I could treat content hidden behind a curtain as invisible, which to me, this is.

      Fuck it, if they wanted to share they'd have posted it somewhere people could see it. Their choice.

      Like their own website? http://www.galapagos.gob.ec/?p=6096

    37. Re:Photo? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I am logged in and still can't see it.

    38. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I was logged in and could see it. I logged out and could not. I logged in again and could see it.

    39. Re:Photo? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Or just knock on my door and ask to use my PC for a couple of minutes.

      It's pretty straightforward and although I'll ask for your name I promise not to sell it to advertisers.

    40. Re:Photo? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The difference is that there is no free way to get access to that content though there is for Facebook.

      Everything has a cost. Do you think Facebook is putting up their servers and paying their programmers out of the sheer goodness of their hearts?

    41. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Why should a tour company jump through your hoops when they are comfortable using Facebook? They have no obligation to supply data for free in the format you prefer.
      Your way is not free as it cost a floppy disk and mailing costs. Free goes both ways.

    42. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      your link is still broken.

      It is not broke. It is just not view-able if not logged in.

    43. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Oh I don't know, how about the tour operators website?

      Perhaps they want to keep their business site for business and not act as a new site for a volcano? The volcano is probably not going to be erupting for long so tour packages are probably not an option.

      You sure hate Facebook. What did it ever do to you?

    44. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      For the poster it is free and for the reader it is free. Costs are paid for by advertisers.

    45. Re: Photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NSA shill identified! Where do I collect my Internet Points?

    46. Re:Photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the friends.
      It's facebook constantly emailing you to log in because you're "missing out" on all the shit people post on their walls if you don't log in for a couple of months.

    47. Re:Photo? by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      your link is still broken.

      It is not broke. It is just not view-able if not logged in.

      You're new here.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    48. Re:Photo? by adolf · · Score: 1

      For the poster it is free and for the reader it is free. Costs are paid for by advertisers.

      Free? Sorta-kinda, in a very liberal sense of the word.

      It's not free as in libre ("here's some stuff, do what you want with it"), and it's not free as in beer ("hey man, want a beer?").

      It's "free" as a flyer stuck in your front door that says "Call this number to get a free 24-pack of Pepsi," and you call that number, and you get connected to a vacuum salesman who will deliver your "free" soda while he gives you a hard sell on a new sweeper that you didn't even know you needed. And when you try to take your "free" soda and block his advertising, he's already got his foot in your door. He's probably even started calling you names because he genuinely believes that you're stealing the "free" soda he delivered.

      Same with a "free" energy review from some dude walking around the neighborhood with a clip board and a nametag on a lanyard. Or a "free" drawing for a vacation from some company that sells vinyl replacement windows.

      I don't see any reason why you shouldn't use the word freely -- English is flexible -- but that doesn't mean that such usage is not complete and utter bullshit.

    49. Re:Photo? by aevan · · Score: 1

      A tour company that wants to limit distribution to only through facebook? By all means.

      Posting it on slashdot, especially with other sources of photos of probably equal quality? Pure bait.

      Facebook isn't free either. It's as free as the AOL disk the data is written on, though I'll grant you postage. I'll counter with data costs though, for the spam mail. [Aside: my email is already flooded with facebook crap. Doesn't seem a month goes by without someone signing up using one of my accounts.]

    50. Re: Photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use your brain ?

      Because I do, I don't want to have anything to do with Facebook.

    51. Re:Photo? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Shame on samzenpus for thinking everyone is a lemming, especially on Slashdot.

      Come off it, everybody on Slashdot is a lemming.

      Just a different flavoured one.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    52. Re:Photo? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      If your lynx can't show photos it must be misconfigured.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    53. Re:Photo? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Samzenpus wasn't thinking anything, he was relying on statistics and surprisingly many of us see the photo just fine.

      "Surprisingly"? Surely you meant "unsurprisingly"?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    54. Re:Photo? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Facebook isn't free last time I checked - you pay with your privacy. It's still payment (and yes, I *have* a fb account).

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    55. Re:Photo? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      your link is still broken.

      It is not broke. It is just not view-able if not logged in.

      You do know there's a difference between public content and walled-off content? From this thread it appears that you consider walled-off content to be just as public as actual public content.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    56. Re:Photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mercury amalgum.

      Soggy paper plate?

      Or maybe, on a shit sandwich.

    57. Re:Photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook works for Facebook stockholders and the government data collection octopus.

      There, fixed that for ya.

    58. Re:Photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we get from it is that Samzenpus is permanently logged on Facebook and can't tell the difference from the open internet and closed sites.

      I have a Facebook account but I sure as hell won't log on just to see a lame picture.

    59. Re:Photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A tour company that wants to limit distribution to only through facebook?

      Maybe they know their customer base is comprised of dolts and followers.

    60. Re:Photo? by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      If you killed yourself, you'd be a happier, more well-adjusted person. Try it! PLEASE!

      Oh look, the a-typical response from someone who I'm sure has various emotional problems and wishes for someone to commit suicide. Perhaps you should get some psychiatric help for your mental illness.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    61. Re:Photo? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they want to keep their business site for business and not act as a new site for a volcano? The volcano is probably not going to be erupting for long so tour packages are probably not an option.

      Right, so instead of using the even to draw people to their site, which in turn could generate revenue in terms of more sales for their tour business they didn't. That's some sound business planning.

      You sure hate Facebook. What did it ever do to you?

      The question you should be asking is, why do you like facebook? And why do you whore your personal information out so cheaply. Some of us have been on the internet for a long time.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    62. Re: Photo? by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      Now if that link were only in English.

      Seriously though, why couldn't THIS link be in the summary instead of the Facebook one? There's 2 reasons for this: #1) Slashdot is full of users who refuse to get a Facebook login as a matter of pride; #2) There are some of us who cruise Slashdot during the downtime at their jobs, where Facebook is firewalled out, while they're waiting for code to compile, a problem to come up, or coded themselves into such a place that most maintenance issues have an automated solution already in place and it's a matter of waiting for the next authorized project (it's coming, we swear!). Think of the bloody audience of the site you're posting for when you make a submission!

    63. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Posting it on slashdot, especially with other sources of photos of probably equal quality? Pure bait.

      The tour company didn't post the link on Facebook. I doubt they even know Slashdot exists.

    64. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      I have a strange ability to ignore ads. I guess I must be unique on Slashdot. Both of your "not free" examples take up significant amount of one's time. Ignoring ads takes no time.

    65. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Walled off content with free access is close enough for me. It is not a very high wall. A child could step over it.

    66. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      And why do you whore your personal information out so cheaply.

      Because I understand the servers, programmers and ops staff require money and believe that seeing a few ads is fair exchange for the content I see. To me, giving advertisers enough information so I see fewer tampon ads (I am a single male) I see as a plus. Sorry but I am not part of the tinfoil hat brigade.

      Some of us have been on the internet for a long time.

      I love that assumption. I was on the internet when Gopher was new.

    67. Re:Photo? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I have a Facebook account, I am logged in and still can't see the fucking picture.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    68. Re:Photo? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I get "This content is currently unavailable", and I'm obviously logged in (I have the online friends list on the right, my name on the top, and all that).

    69. Re:Photo? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's not "free" access except monetarily. You pay with personal information.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    70. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      We will have to agree to disagree on definitions.

    71. Re: Photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see it fine. What's the problem?

    72. Re:Photo? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Because I understand the servers, programmers and ops staff require money and believe that seeing a few ads is fair exchange for the content I see. To me, giving advertisers enough information so I see fewer tampon ads (I am a single male) I see as a plus. Sorry but I am not part of the tinfoil hat brigade.

      So you're handing your personal information out cheaply because you have no value in your own self worth as an individual? Not sure if that's exactly the smartest thing to do.

      I love that assumption. I was on the internet when Gopher was new.

      Then you're still new to the internet. That would be '91.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    73. Re:Photo? by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      So you're handing your personal information out cheaply because you have no value in your own self worth as an individual?

      I do not see how trading personal information has anything to do with self worth. My personal information has worth that I trade for the information on the site. I just not entitled enough to think that I deserve all information for free.

      Then you're still new to the internet. That would be '91.

      I have been in computing since 1982.

    74. Re:Photo? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      We will have to agree to disagree on definitions.

      I can live with that :-)

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    75. Re: Photo? by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      coded themselves into such a place that most maintenance issues have an automated solution already in place

      It's like the Tooth Fairy, Loch Ness Monster, and Jesus all revealed themselves at once.

  5. too bad about the tourists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the people who are threatening the fragile ecosystem.

  6. Image link down. Anyone have a mirror? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    FB image link appears to be down, or just not accessible for people not on FB.

  7. But unlike the SMBH eruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This one was only 100x as big as a Snickers bar.

  8. Seems to me that the volcano... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    would be PART of the ecosystem, no?

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Seems to me that the volcano... by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      It's *all* part of a very delicate ecosystem.

    2. Re:Seems to me that the volcano... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. The fact that pink iguanas exist at all means they have survived countless eruptions in the past. Nothing to see here. Mother nature at work. Spectacular, yes. Alarming, no.

  9. Tourism by Livius · · Score: 3, Funny

    Good to know that the exceedingly wealthy will not be suffering from slight inconvenience. And to think I was worried about the possible loss of irreplaceable ecological assets...

    1. Re:Tourism by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      And to think I was worried about the possible loss of irreplaceable ecological assets...

      Why worry? Its a perfectly natural occurrence, completely out of our control, & nobody is in harm's way.

    2. Re:Tourism by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      And I see no reason why a group of scientists/ecologists can't pick up the colony of pink iguanas and relocate them.

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    3. Re:Tourism by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Ermmm... They won't be pink anymore.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    4. Re:Tourism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And take them somewhere else as invasive species?
      Have we learned nothing in the past couple of decades?
      Just let nature take its course.

    5. Re:Tourism by Livius · · Score: 2

      I know it seems like tourists are an infinitely-renewable resource, but how can we be sure?

  10. Working links with pictures by bobstreo · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Working links with pictures by aevan · · Score: 1

      Naturally, mod points ran out yesterday. Thanks for the useful links (as opposed to the submissions).

    2. Re:Working links with pictures by bobstreo · · Score: 3

      You're welcome. I was irked everyone was complaining about the submission, and I wanted to see pictures. I enjoy volcano pictures and
      videos. From a safe distance.

    3. Re:Working links with pictures by pjt33 · · Score: 5, Informative

      FWIW, the Spanish-language version of the last link has much better pictures than the English-language version.

  11. White Man's Fault by pubwvj · · Score: 5, Funny

    Clearly this is a manmade disaster caused by White American Republican Males. They should stop volcanoing!

    1. Re:White Man's Fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blame the lack of female coders. I'm sure there's a link in there somewhere.

    2. Re:White Man's Fault by turkeydance · · Score: 1

      don't go volcanoing what don't need volcanoing.

    3. Re:White Man's Fault by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      Breaking News: Muslim Televangelist states the eruption is caused by masturbation.

    4. Re:White Man's Fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They say they have nothing to do with it but claim it's those gays angering god.

    5. Re:White Man's Fault by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      The link is probably to a Nul device which caused a buffer overrun resulting in the ejaculation.

    6. Re:White Man's Fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be a law! No more volcanoes in fragile ecosystems. Problem solved!

    7. Re:White Man's Fault by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Update: Muslim Televangelist retracts statement and issues apology; cites idiomatic confusion of the term 'pink iguana'.

    8. Re:White Man's Fault by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      If you think about it it only makes sense that fracking in America creates underground pressures which *must* force volcanos to erupt worldwide to alleviate the pressure. Frackers Drilled, Volcanoes Killed!

      Look for my paper on this in Science next month. It contains MANY data points which took me ages to fabri---er, collect.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    9. Re:White Man's Fault by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Gay colored igaunas need to butch up

    10. Re:White Man's Fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly not one of my people volunteered to jump into the Big Woo.

    11. Re:White Man's Fault by v1 · · Score: 1

      wait, didn't ISIS just claim responsibility for this?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  12. Why would I want a Facebook account? by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Found the problem, you have to be logged in to Facebook to see it.

    And why on earth would I want to do that? Facebook has nothing of value to offer me that I care about and I sure as hell do not trust the company. I do not have a Facebook account and don't expect to get one any time soon. I'm certainly not going to sign up to get some random news article that undoubtedly will be available elsewhere.

    1. Re:Why would I want a Facebook account? by jklovanc · · Score: 0

      Facebook has nothing of value to offer me that I care about and I sure as hell do not trust the company.

      It offers nothing except the the information in the link that you clicked on. If you don't like Facebook then don't click on Facebook links.

    2. Re:Why would I want a Facebook account? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Man, I rail against NYT paywalls which people erroneously claim can by bypassed by private browsing, and I get accused of trolling. One failbook link, and everyone LOSES THEIR MINDS

      Or however the meme goes.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Why would I want a Facebook account? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      And why on earth would I want to do that? Facebook has nothing of value to offer me that I care about

      Well apparently now it does, or you wouldn't be complaining.

      ProTip: It's not like you need to give Facebook any real data to sign up, and you can access it in privacy mode to thwart tracking cookies.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:Why would I want a Facebook account? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Facebook has nothing of value to offer me

      Ahhh then clearly there is no problem here. Please move on to the next Slashdot article.

    5. Re:Why would I want a Facebook account? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 2

      You are incredibly self-absorbed if you think anyone other than the slash-shit echo chamber cares the slightest whether you would ever sign in to FB. It's not like it's an achievement worth crowing about. There are thousands, if not millions, of sites with sign-ins that I haven't signed up for. No one in the world, including my wife and daughter, give even the slightest shit.

      Basically, you're so wrapped up in yourself you firmly believe in the sjbe-centric model of the Universe. Too fucking many "good effort" gold stars when you were in Kindergarten.

    6. Re:Why would I want a Facebook account? by 517714 · · Score: 1

      He's not complaining, he is pointing out how virtuous he is in not having a FB account.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    7. Re:Why would I want a Facebook account? by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      You are incredibly self-absorbed if you think anyone other than the slash-shit echo chamber cares the slightest whether you would ever sign in to FB

      So basically everyone on the planet should trust their private information to an untrustworthy data-mining company. And we're just supposed to... all be fine with this and hope that it works out?

    8. Re:Why would I want a Facebook account? by sjbe · · Score: 1

      Well apparently now it does, or you wouldn't be complaining.

      Nope. Merely expressing annoyance at the assumption that I should have to sign up for a Facebook account. "Oh you just have to log in" is utterly unhelpful to me. Even if I had an account and could log in I have no desire to do so.

      ProTip: It's not like you need to give Facebook any real data to sign up, and you can access it in privacy mode to thwart tracking cookies.

      It's one more annoying thing to keep track of, it gives Facebook the opportunity to track at least some of my activity even in privacy mode, and privacy mode does not thwart all tracking. Furthermore in order to really do anything genuinely useful with Facebook you need to "friend" people which pretty much ends up being a giveaway as to who you are.

    9. Re:Why would I want a Facebook account? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Even with the number of facebook users on the web I find that actual content get's buried and ignored if the reader needs a facebook login. This story will be elsewhere, if only I was motivated enough to actually find the story.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  13. Survival of the fittest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    After enough volcano eruptions perhaps a new breed of lava-proof super iguana will evolve?

    1. Re:Survival of the fittest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > perhaps a new breed of lava-proof super iguana will evolve

      Already does. Near Fukushima. Now all we need is a good name... ;-)

    2. Re:Survival of the fittest by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      A super iguana? It'll have to be god like.
      I propose 'Godguana'

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  14. Here's a better link for an image by istartedi · · Score: 1
    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Here's a better link for an image by unixcorn · · Score: 1

      For all intents and purposes, who cares?

      http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/for_all_intensive_purposes

  15. You realize... by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...if humans save these pink iguanas, we are interfering with nature. Can't have it both ways, by saying our actions that make stuff go extinct is bad, and actions by nature that makes stuff go extinct is bad, too.

    1. Re:You realize... by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...if humans save these pink iguanas, we are interfering with nature.

      Yes. And?

      Can't have it both ways, by saying our actions that make stuff go extinct is bad, and actions by nature that makes stuff go extinct is bad, too.

      Can't have what both ways? The premise is that things going extinct is universally bad. Yes, even when its entirely due to natural causes its still in our bests interests to preserve it. Biodiversity is objectively valuable; because we can learn from it.

      Letting a species go extinct is like shredding the last copy of a book. The more interesting and unique the species the greater the loss to science.

      Finally, and perhaps tangentially, its also rational to put higher value on the larger / famous species -- the extinction of some obscure spider or toad is perhaps just as much a loss as the extinction of tigers scientifically. But tigers are culturally significant in addition to being scientifically significant. So the extra awareness and priority to them is warranted.

    2. Re:You realize... by GrahamCox · · Score: 2

      The premise is that things going extinct is universally bad

      Says who? You realise that >99% of species that have ever lived are extinct? Of course it seems sad when a species goes extinct, especially as it's often because of unnecessary predation by humans (e.g. elephants, rhinos), so let's concentrate on stopping our own species being such arseholes. However, in general extinction is totally natural, and as in this (rare) case when it's not our fault at all, then let it be. I suspect that those Iguanas will be perfectly fine if we just leave it alone for a change.

    3. Re:You realize... by Livius · · Score: 1

      1. Every species has value.

      2. Every species does not have infinite value.

    4. Re:You realize... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Of course it seems sad

      "seems sad"? Did you even read what I wrote? I gave two separate and specific contexts where extinction is a clear loss to humanity: scientific loss in all cases, and cultural loss in more limited cases. Both go well beyond "seems sad".

      , especially as it's often because of unnecessary predation by humans (e.g. elephants, rhinos),

      Along with climate changes, desertification, habitat destruction, food chain collapse,...

      . However, in general extinction is totally natural

      Nobody is arguing that point. A meter striking a major city would be totally natural too. "Natural" is hardly a reason to simply let it happen if we see it coming.

      and as in this (rare) case when it's not our fault at all, then let it be

      It's still a scientific loss. And its a valuable species; all the Galapagos are particularly valuable to science due to their extended isolation and resultant independent evolution.

      The question I'm asking is not whether its natural or not, its whether its better or not in the long run for us not to have access to this species to study?

      Its hard to make the argument that we gain any advantage from it being extinct.

      I suspect that those Iguanas will be perfectly fine if we just leave it alone for a change

      We have actual scientists who have an actual scientific basis for being concerned about this species status... but you, without any grounds, studies, or special knowledge of the situation, suspect it will be just fine. So ... lets go with that instead. /facepalm

    5. Re:You realize... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      1. Every species has value.
      2. Every species does not have infinite value.

      I'd argue the Galapagos species are priceless. But I would also agree, that even priceless doesn't mean they have infinite value. There must be a reasonable limit on what we'd spend to save them ... but surely we agree its well above 0.

    6. Re:You realize... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      To move them is to promote the use of fossil fuel.

      Is that a "for real" reason not to preserve a species, or are you just trolling? In a world where we use oil to make plastic McDonald's happy meal toys in china, and then more oil to ship to the united states, then more oil shipping them to a landfill after kids played with them for exactly 5 minutes once, the argument against using fossile fuels cost of preserving Galapagos species falls pretty flat.

      What will moving them do to the food chain of the area that the iguanas now inhabit ?

      Not moving them, and having them go extinct would have the same effect.

      Is it better to move all of them or to split the colony ?

      Have we identified anything else that is being threatened by the volcano ?
      When did the next to last colony of pink iguana disappear ?
      How is it determined if/when the iguana need to be moved ?
      Do we understand enough about them to move them ?
      How much support are we going to provide them if moved ?

      I am not a biologist. Never mind a specialist in the Galapagos. Ask them.
      But if a volcano is looking likely to wipe them out, and moving a number to a zoo to try and preserve them seems well worth it to me.

      in the end, you can not have it both ways.

      Can not have WHAT both ways?

    7. Re:You realize... by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      The premise is that things going extinct is universally bad.

      I don't think you'd be here typing that if the dinosaurs didn't go extinct. Extinction is not bad, nor is it good, it simply is. It is evolution.

    8. Re:You realize... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you'd be here typing that if the dinosaurs didn't go extinct

      Probably not. Perhaps I should have clarified that things going extinct is universally bad for humanity.

      And yes, obviously prior extinctions leading to the evolution of humanity were not bad for humanity.

      On the other hand, humanity going extinct would be exceedingly bad for humanity.

      Other species co-existent with humanity now going extinct, in the sense that it represents a reduction in biodiversity to draw on and study is also bad for humanity.

      Extinction is not bad, nor is it good, it simply is. It is evolution.

      Right, it is not good or bad relative to the universe; its not "objectively" bad. Its not immoral. But it is still unversally bad from the subjective perspective of the species going extinct, or the species relying on it.

      That, in this case, would be us. Granted we aren't dependent on the galapagos iguana the way we are dependent on chickens or corn, but we are dependent on the existing bio-diversity of earth to advance a wide variety of sciences, and the loss of that diversity is a loss to humanity. Particularly the Galapagos. Both due to its scientific value as a long isolated ecosystem; and culturally for its historic significance.

    9. Re:You realize... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I gave two separate and specific contexts where extinction is a clear loss to humanity

      That's a very anthropocentric way of looking at things. It's really sad when even the people 'defending' the natural order feel the need to shape their argument in a way so that 'people' benefit.

      It always strikes me that at least some of the scientists say 'damn, now how will I get tenure!?!' when an extinction event happens before they can study something.

      It's worst with Archaeologists, whose goal in life is to root up everything and use 'the most modern techniques possible' to tear apart the historical evidence, then deposit some of the 'good bits' in modern steel and glass buildings.

    10. Re:You realize... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Extinction is not bad, nor is it good, it simply is. It is evolution.

      No, it's not. Evolution is a process where species diverge. It can only occur when one species splits into two, and/or a species radically changes as an adaptation to the environment.

      It isn't 'survival of the fittest' or any other moronic thing they taught you in third grade.

      The fossil record shows that there were sabre-tooth marsupials in South America before the land bridge at Panama connected the two continents. There was no 'evolution' at play when the land bridge occurred and sabre-tooth cats moved into the range and out-competed the marsupials. There was only extinction. There were then fewer species living on the planet, for better or worse.

    11. Re:You realize... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      That's a very anthropocentric way of looking at things.

      I can't tell if your suggesting that's good or bad. I think its good.

      It's really sad when even the people 'defending' the natural order feel the need to shape their argument in a way so that 'people' benefit.

      That's not anthropocentric. That's personal / self-interested / ego-centric.

      It's worst with Archaeologists, whose goal in life is to root up everything and use 'the most modern techniques possible' to tear apart the historical evidence, then deposit some of the 'good bits' in modern steel and glass buildings.

      That's a strange way of looking at it. They are seeking to learn and recover that which is -lost-. I can't see how not finding that which is lost is somehow doing us any good.

      Granted the longer we wait to find that which is lost the better our technology for preserving it is but that is offset by
      - a how long do we wait? clearly if we wait forever we never benefit from finding it; and anything else is entirely arbitrary. Searching

      - some of what is lost is often slowly and sometimes quickly deteriorating. waiting for the future to find it may not leave us anything to find.

    12. Re:You realize... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 3, Informative

      Perhaps I should have clarified that things going extinct is universally bad for humanity.

      Except that it's not. In the vast majority of cases it's neutral. In some cases it might be good. You have some kind of Greenpeace-like attitude that humanity == bad, every other species == good. That's not how the Universe works.

    13. Re:You realize... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Except that it's not. In the vast majority of cases it's neutral.

      No. The total loss of a species to study and learn from is a loss. That's not neutral. Its not like one species is dying to be replaced by another; right now were are experiencing decreasing bio-diversity.

      You have some kind of Greenpeace-like attitude that humanity == bad, every other species == good. That's not how the Universe works.

      My entire argument is centered on what is to the ultimate benefit of humanity. And another respondent even (rightfully) called my position "anthropocentric". I'm not sure what to make of your comment; except to say: "swing and a miss".

    14. Re:You realize... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I have to roll my eyes at this concept. The logic seems to be based on a sock puppet concept of what will most annoy Environmentalists, or Hippies, or whatever is trying to "force humans to behave". Humans have an impact, merely by being a successful organism. If mosquitos killed off the dinosaurs, do we "blame" them? No.

      However, humans are in the position of mitigating their effect -- not only that, but we can PICK WINNERS! Human interference, or perhaps symbiosis, has elevated dogs to family pets and helped cows to become more plentiful (jury is out on whether they enjoy the honor). The simple truth is we are in the middle of a massive extinction rate that is as fast and as massive as many of the great ones in history -- so why not preserve whatever we can to maintain diversity? Everything we choose to do or do not do will decide winners and losers, so helping out the Galapagos species even though a Volcano might doom them is not necessarily "bad". Sure, it's unnatural -- but what does that mean anymore when human's are, by their nature, effectors of change on a planetary scale?

      It's time to recognize that we may be in what could be called the "post evolutionary stage." Or perhaps the "directed evolutionary stage." We are busy tweaking ourselves, bioweapons, antibiotics, and glow in the dark cats. Terraforming or building resort islands will be part and parcel with choosing to keep building more roads or build more trains and paint rooftops white to reduce heat absorption.

      Environmentalists might have to come to terms with what is "natural" -- but since economics is most of the decision making process -- being environmentally conscious is either useful or useless but rarely damaging, the next GMO food has more impact than a thousand activists and it's time we looked at things in the larger context.

      Grabbing some animals and flora off an island to survive an eruption is tampering in a positive way, whereas using pesticides on food crops is tampering on a much larger scale. I don't see the problem or contradiction with mitigating the effects of natural disasters when we do far more to wipe out species -- it's a small attempt to restore balance.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    15. Re:You realize... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I'd say that Greenpeace is arguably the good guys, in the same way as these "let Galapagos species die because it's natural" is a bad idea. Extinctions DO seem to serve a purpose in the grand scheme -- but only to wipe the slate clean for new designs. The earth has come close to becoming lifeless and either too hot or too cold, and that's been largely due to imbalances that cause species die off. So YES, more diversity = GOOD. And that's a provable statement in many subjective and objective ways.

      I just admire Greenpeace activists because they aren't fighting for some invisible God, or ego - they risk real adversity. Maybe in the future people will treat them as larger than life heroes -- but you and I discussing this on a blog, not so much -- we stay comfortable.

      And I'll defend Hippies because they believe in peace and love and equality -- and what could be wrong with that?

      We, as a self-satisfied SUV driving culture want to preserve our status quo AND pat ourselves on the back. Are we another myopic death cult? It seems; nobody sees themselves for what they are in the culture that created the problem. Archie Bunker becomes a sex symbol because instead of progress, we believe the marketing that being a stupid cow eating stupid cows is some kind of achievement.

      How do you think history will judge the American culture by and large in 50 years?

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    16. Re:You realize... by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, humanity going extinct would be exceedingly bad for humanity.

      Are you suggesting nature gives a f about us? We will go extinct, and probably by our own doing. Everything that has a beginning has an end.

      Personally, I think the whole debate against human activity being 'unnatural' is stupid. We are a product of this planet, what we do is natural, we aren't some extra-terrestrial interfering with our planet, we're natives living here, influencing our world. For better, or for worse. And a lot of in between.

    17. Re:You realize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The premise is that things going extinct is universally bad.

      I can't agree to this in many cases, particularly with respect to certain disease-causing microbes, or things like the malaria mosquito. While I can say that we probably don't want to allow large extinction events, many such things have happened in Earth's past and life has moved on.

    18. Re:You realize... by adolf · · Score: 1

      We, as a self-satisfied SUV driving culture want to preserve our status quo AND pat ourselves on the back. Are we another myopic death cult?

      No. We're simply the top of the food chain. Everything else is, quite literally, beneath us, and has been for a most (all?) of recorded history.

      Does the wolf care whether the rabbit he just killed was the last example? Nay, he simply fills his belly with it, finds something else to devour, and the Earth gives no shits.

    19. Re:You realize... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I should have clarified that things going extinct is universally bad for humanity.

      Smallpox.

      Measles.

      Rabies.

      Plague.

      So, it would be universally bad for humanity if those died out? If so, why all the efforts to immunize people against them?

      Or did you mean that "Cute things going extinct is universally bad for humanity"?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    20. Re:You realize... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, humanity going extinct would be exceedingly bad for humanity.

      Are you suggesting nature gives a f about us?

      He didn't. It's right there - "humanity going extinct would be exceedingly bad for humanity". He's not claiming that it will be bad for nature, or the earth, or ecology in general, he's making a specific claim that it will be bad for humanity. Of course he's correct - that's practically a tautology and may indicate lack of sleep and/or concentration on his part :-)

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    21. Re:You realize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some species going extinct opens up a niche for new species to thrive. Or do you think we'd still be here if the dinosaurs had never gone extinct?

    22. Re:You realize... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      So, it would be universally bad for humanity if those died out?

      Even virii are valuable, as we learn a lot from them. And yes, total eradication, while it makes for some short term happiness may ultimately lead to a long term problem. In the case of a harmful virus; I have no objection to active infections being purged, especially when the virus is disfiguring, painful, or lethal - I consistently put the welfare of humanity out front.

      However we should probably keep some around in jars or whatever for study. Good to have samples of a "contained" virus to help us compare to new wild strain in the future; to help research new treatments.

      Or did you mean that "Cute things going extinct is universally bad for humanity"?

      Nope. That's just you projecting what you think my argument is.

    23. Re:You realize... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Of course he's correct - that's practically a tautology and may indicate lack of sleep and/or concentration on his part :-)

      I was actually going for the "this should be all but self evident to anybody" with that particular line. And the poster above you STILL managed to mis-characterize what I said.

  16. Your link by rstanley · · Score: 1

    Your link is to a "File" NOT a site. I don't have access to your computer.

    1. Re:Your link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for you. Then don't click "file" links. It is available to everyone(*) just not in the way you want it available.

      * Who wants to go through the rigmarole of gaining access to my computer.

    2. Re:Your link by rstanley · · Score: 1

      A "File" link would be to a "File" on YOUR computer, NOT the WEB!!!!

      HOW is it available to EVERYONE???

    3. Re:Your link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, he wrote a blog post about linking. I think he knows what he is doing.

    4. Re:Your link by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

    5. Re:Your link by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      I can access it just fine, all you need is access to AC's computer.

  17. grammar nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did the boat take a picture?

  18. Earth-made Global Warming Baloney by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no, man is not the villain this time! The liberals must be very upset!!

    1. Re:Earth-made Global Warming Baloney by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Funny

      Didn't you hear? The Fracking in the US caused the Volcano to erupt.

    2. Re:Earth-made Global Warming Baloney by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Like it did in 1982 as well.

  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. Funny by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    "Environmentalists voice concern over iguanas"
    Cool, environmentalists voice concern over the environment making a species extinct.
    We should put a stop to the environment!

    1. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mom voiced concern when I thrust my 8" cock into her ass last night.

  21. Anti-environmentalist God denounced.... by CraigCruden · · Score: 1

    Volcano erupts in Galapagos and lava flows down the hill to cover a nature preserve potentially wiping out ping iguanas..... God denounced for being anti-nature because he has replaced a preserve with a parking lot....

  22. Utter reality that nature deletes species... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Utter reality that nature deletes species all on its own without any help from the human infection, lol.

    I suppose a story about a secret fracking operation will surface any day now...

  23. Jesus tapdancing Christ people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is this thing called Google that was invented back in the 1990s before the Bush administration came around and made it uncool to know things.. and I just used it to find this:

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/galapagos-island-volcano-erupts-threatening-fragile-ecosystem/story?id=31300581

    Seriously you guys claim to be nerds and geeks and technology experts and yet waste all that time because you can't get to a picture on Facebook that is available all over the internet???

  24. Incorrect by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

    Except that--to the extent that some organisms depend on the volcano for survival (eh, maybe some extremophile bacteria?)--no it is not a part of the ecosystem any more than a large asteroid on a collision course with Earth is part of the ecosystem.

    On a related note, there is a difference between caring about the preservation of endangered species and pimping 'organic' food. Only the later involves mindlessly screaming "but it's natural!"

    1. Re:Incorrect by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      Definition per the Wiki:

      An ecosystem is a community of living organisms in conjunction with the nonliving components of their environment (things like air, water and mineral soil), interacting as a system

      The volcano would be one of the "nonliving components of the environment", which influences things around it (soil and air chemistry, microclimate, etc.), even in the periods between eruptions. Quite different to an inbound asteroid....

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    2. Re:Incorrect by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      You might have a point about soil chemistry, but my macro point was that caring about the preservation of endangered macroscopic life forms does not entail a slavish adherence to preservation of or deference to whatever is "natural".

      The concern here was regarding the possibility that a major eruption could cause the extinction of species. It does not seem at all likely that the lack of a major eruption would cause any species to go extinct. Do you disagree?

    3. Re:Incorrect by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 2

      My point is that the characterization of a potential eruption as a "threat" to the ecosystem ignores the simple fact that the source of the "threat" is as natural a part of the ecosystem as the plants and animals that are being "threatened".

      The species plants and animals that are living there have evolved in that place WITH the local geology. Periodic volcanic eruptions are an intrinsic PART of that particular ecosystem. The fact that the plants and animals are still there after untold numbers of past eruptions says something about how nature tends to shrug off these kinds of "threats".

      It seems to me that using the word "threat" here is misplaced. This isn't something coming from outside this area to have a negative impact like your asteroid or some external pollution source. Yes, the eruption might very well change the biodiversity of the area in the short term. But such change itself is an intrinsic part of nature. It only seems to be considered as a bad thing by humans because some species of "cuddly animals" may be impacted.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    4. Re:Incorrect by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      Major eruptions (and perhaps this needs to be defined a little more rigorously) are not part of the local ecology. It is true that massive extinction events have an effect on the ecology insofar as they destroy it and allow another, hardier/luckier organism to take over, but I think that a definition of "ecology" that includes the prospect of a volcanic eruption wiping out all macroscopic species of life on an island isn't a very useful one. Catastrophic eruptions do not happen with enough frequency to influence the evolution of creatures, except to the extent of creating new niches by destroying the existing ecology.

      I'm not sure what the internal/external quibbling is supposed to accomplish. If you want to quibble that a large quantities of magma is part of the ecology, under that very broad definition I'm pretty sure a case can be made for asteroids as well (the dinosaur extinction being the popular example.)

      To put it another way: it's ok to care about the ecosystem as it currently is. This isn't some cultish worship of "natural" like organic nutjobs exhibit; rather, this is the acknowledgement that while catastrophic extinction events could conceivably be characterized as part of an ecosystem evolving on a very long-term scale (millions of years), this isn't a very consoling fact.

      Pointing out that minor eruptions can significantly influence soil composition that local life might be adapted to--ok, sure.

      "Massive volcano eruptions are *natural* ! Let's just wait a few million years for new interesting life to evolve, and then you'll see how this is just part of a larger ecosystem!" ...no, that is an asinine argument.

    5. Re:Incorrect by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      We aren't talking about millions of years timescale here. According to TFA, the last eruption was 33 years ago. This would make eruptions as much a part of the natural ebb and flow there as wildfires are in some areas.

      No, this isn't a very "consoling fact", but it seems very anthropocentric to assume that nature is here to console you or any other human....

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    6. Re:Incorrect by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      No, this isn't a very "consoling fact", but it seems very anthropocentric to assume that nature is here to console you or any other human....

      Why do you keep assuming I give a shit about nature? In every reply, I have reiterated my contempt for any obsession over that which is "natural". I am pointing out that ecosystems can in fact die off due to catastrophe and to argue that this destruction is just some part of a larger million-year ecosystem is as foolish and irrelevant as arguing that the heat death of the universe is part of our ecosystem.

      Obviously, the eruption from 30 years ago wasn't a major eruption and it looks like this one won't be, either. That said, it is worth examining how these eruptions affect the ecosystem in a careful and studied manner (beginning by examining eruptions prior to the one 30 years ago--has it been active for hundreds of thousands of years, or is this a more recent development?). We *can* in fact make a reasonably objective judgement about whether or not something is harmful to the ecology... because ecology is not a synonym for nature. That's my only point here.

  25. Got a bit of irony on you by sjbe · · Score: 2

    You are incredibly self-absorbed if you think anyone other than the slash-shit echo chamber cares the slightest whether you would ever sign in to FB.

    Apparently you care since you got all worked up about it here in the "slash-shit echo chamber". Little bit of irony there that seems to have escaped your notice. You also apparently are unable to comprehend that my point was in regards to the annoying assumption that everyone has a facebook account. I use myself as an example but I'm hardly the only one. I would make the exact same point about a NYT paywall link although to be honest I trust the NYT far more than I ever would trust facebook.

    1. Re:Got a bit of irony on you by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      You also apparently are unable to comprehend that my point was in regards to the annoying assumption that everyone has a facebook account.

      The only assumption I made was that you didn't know what the problem and/or solution was therefore I gave you information. I couldn't care less whether or not you have a FB account. Your position that, since not everyone has FB accounts, no one should use FB links is flawed. If you don't have a FB account don't click on FB links.

  26. No paywall protected article links in summary by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Man, I rail against NYT paywalls which people erroneously claim can by bypassed by private browsing, and I get accused of trolling. One failbook link, and everyone LOSES THEIR MINDS

    Same basic issue but frankly I trust the NTY *far* more than I trust facebook even though I have no interest in funding either one. There should NEVER be a paywall link in an article summary. Ever. Facebook is merely a particularly egregious one since they are so full of douchebaggery.

  27. Shit happens. by dave.leigh7335 · · Score: 1

    Unless those pink iguanas evolved within the last 30 years, that active volcano is PART OF their 'fragile ecosystem'. It's been there all along.

  28. It's not really a voclano... by unixcorn · · Score: 1

    It's not really a volcano. It's global warming making the earth hotter and melting the rocks. Nature couldn't possibly be destroying her own environment, could she?

  29. Wait a second - should humans interfere? by serutan · · Score: 1

    How does anyone know that saving pink iguanas from a volcano is better than letting nature take its course?

  30. Survival of the fittest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh well, evolution says they lose. Who are we to object.