There's valid good-faith questioning, and then there's bad-faith denial. Usually they're not hard to tell apart.
We really do need some scientific questioning about what's happening but tragically that gets drowned out in the denial.
Obviously, If someone wanted to question AGW, there are ways to do it.
You come up with a hypothesis. That would be something like "The greenhouse effect fails at global scales because of radiative reflection by clouds.".
Okay, now you have your hypothesis. So you come up with a rationale and a pla of how you are going to test it.
I'd say first measurements of radiation reflected by clouds might be taken by satellite to get a baseline. then over years, do large scale testing with amounts of cloud cover, and extrapolate.
the concept is that when land and ocean warm up, there will be more water put into the atmosphere, and cloud cover will increase. The increased reflection will re-radiate more of the sun's insolation back into space. This will then have a cooling effect that will tend to reduce the average temperature. This will act as more of a regulator than anything else. The earth's temperature will tend to be very stable, on a global scale.
Put together a proposal, and look for funding. After getting funding, proceed with the experiment and see how it turns out. If you refute AGW, you are going to get a Nobel prize.
GIven the amount of money spent to deny AGW, some of that might be spent to fund research like this. But it isn't.
And there you go. I've actually provided an actual idea for the refutation of AGW, and a really brief outline of the experiment to confirm it. This is more than anything I've seen by deniers. At best, they cherry pick research done by others, and engage in a false dilemma. At worst, they look outside the window and say "Brrrr, cold today - so much for Global Warming!"
And here are some more fucking facts: Jesus died on the cross for your sins, and he rose from the ashes. These facts cannot be debated, they are simply history. When you "deny" Jesus, you are going to Hell. Sound familiar? If you truly believed in what you would say you would never ride in a car, fly in an aeroplane, or use a computer again. After all, they all use energy that is polluting the environment.
You forgot that the earth was created in October 4004 BC, and all of its creatures were created as they are today.
Oh, and that gawd put all those fossils in the ground to test us just like he told Abraham to kill his son. And that the four corners of the earth mentiond in the bible proves the earth is flat.
What science? From the scientists who studied at these contaminated institutions?
This is special pleading.. Who are these 'real' scientists you speak of? I'm willing to bet they graduated from such schools, probably with high honors. This legitimacy is marred by the compromised state of the university system, most of which pushes ideology first, critical thought second. That shit has to stop.
Ahh, you show your true denialist roots. I knew we could flush you out.
Give me the citations of the contamination. Hell, the university where I worked is considered by the lefties as being in bed with the energy industry. Only difference is, the scientists believe in science, which you do not.
I'll take that back as soon as you show me the citations of the "contaminated universities" and the proof that AGW doesn't exist.
As well, we might discuss how your political beliefs trumps physics. That, by the way, is called Lysenkoism.
That's it, use your mod points you evil fucking assholes. Waste them all, but it won't change the fact that the univese doesn't owe your precious oil economy one fucking favor. CO2 traps energy, assholes, no matter how many mod points and trolling actions you use to try to deny it.
Chillaxe dude. The denialists are using the only tool they have left, to try to yell louder than you do. Your posts don't go away, and I've found in climate news here, it helps to surf at 0.
At this point, so much silt has been stirred, it's hard to know who's telling the truth, if anyone. If scientists want more credibility, they need to start flushing out the ideological charge embedded in universities where they study. Sure, Saud and Koch are hardly objective, but neither are the blowhards at the ivy league.
There is a lot of science out there to read. And trying to invalidate physics by casting aspersions on those who practice it is pretty disingenuous.
There really isn't much left to argue about, either greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases, or they aren't. With some 800 terawatts of radiative forcing in the atmosphere. (1.6 watts per square meter) since 1750, something happens somewhere.
Here's one report - http://news.mit.edu/2010/expla... - where is the blowhardism in it? It's about as simple as can be made. I see no political or monetary agenda. Do you?
what is more, the denialists tend to dreadfully underestimate the money for the research and the scientists salaries. That's a hilarious excuse.
But really, it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny. The basic physics is irrefutable, you can prove the energy retention characteristic of the chemical composition of an atmosphere in your basement. Grade school children do it all the time in school science fairs.
Really, all you are left with is proving that the effect doesn''t exist in large scale systems.
And the research for that is vanishingly small. Even one of the last gasp "refutations" of AGW is the measurements of air temperatures in the troposphere versus satellite discrepancies. Which have long since been brought into correlation, but are still being drug up as a strange sort of false dilemma by deniers.
which by the way, the troposphere is not the surface.
I've always challenged deniers to provide the cites for the refutation of AGW. So far, everything has been pretty easy to refute, either by later research, or sad to say, sometimes deliberate falsification.
And no, the kooks who say the world will end are almost certainly wrong - Something will be here until the sun goes red giant. But things will change. We have a sneak preview of it going on right now. The city of Miami in Florida is already undergoing flooding every spring tide at present levels. The water is there - that cannot be denied. You can walk in it on the street, and it's salt water. http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/H...
These are not from storm surges, these are from a completely natural event. Just higher than it used to be.
And that's just one part of it.
So if you actually are interested in real research, with none of the blowhardism you hate, it's all out there. But the denialists are pretty much now relegated to the same part of humanity as creationists and it's brother Intelligent design, Vaxxers, moon landing conspiracists, and tobacco industry lawyers.
Right, that is because you took part of what I said, added on something totally absurd that is in the opposite direction than my comments were going, and found that the thing I said, plus the thing I didn't say that you added, don't make any sense together.
That should have told you not to add in crap about what I assume is a mobile game.
If you haven't yet comprehended my point, it might be premature to try to expand it.;)
I comprehend much. I also comprehend what the Facebook woman said. I fully comprehend what you wrote.
What I really really disagree with you on is your completely wrong idea that going to the moon did not press any limits. A response like you made deserves at the very least an incredulous response, sarcasm is just as good though.
To be brutally honest, your idea that going to the moon wasn't pressing the limits isn't only not even wrong, it is clueless. I am firmly convinced that you are completely clueless. There's no sarcasm, but opinion based upon experience. I might be wrong, but I didn't make the idiotic statement in the first place.
So I responded mocking you for your stupidity. Sometimes it is kinder to be sarcastic than call a person out like I am now.
And exactly what I would expect from people who stare at their phones all day long. Hence my sarcastic reaction. And you have the unmitigated nerve coupled with large doses of duh to question my powers of comprehension? You are reaching the bottom of the whoosh barrel, my dear fellow. Redeem yourself if you can, what do you think presses the outer limits of mankind?
Very easy to say in retrospect, 40+ years later when SW does't run from ropes of magnetic cores and there's more compute power in a cheap watch then in the entire Apollo stack.
If poster could look up from his apps for a second, maybe go down to Kennedy Space center, and see just what they did at the time - and in truth are still doing, it might possibly impress him enough that he wouldn't think that Candy Crush is the epitome of humankind. That apps somehow are moving humanity toward a bright new future.
If that sounds sarcastic - yup - it was meant to. That the F1 rocket engine was designed and built when it was, using the incredibly primitive design tools of the day, ranks among mankind's greatest achievements, like it or not.
But today, Facebook and Twitter are the crowning acheivement of humanity.
No, no - they are not. Not even remotely, its the small minded success of small minded people. There is a whole world - nay - a whole universe out there, both beautiful and fascinating, if only we'd look up from the stupid gaddamned phone for a moment.
Malthus will always be wrong, because he neglected many important factors.
He might someday 'be right', but only in the 'broken clock' way.
The issue with Malthus is that like so many people have done for just about ever, he didn't take into consideration the fact that technology moves on.
As a cleric living at the beginning of the industrial revolution, he did not correctly predict just how much that revolution would allow more people to be supported.
Then the so called green revolution came along. Another technology improvement that allows more people to be fed for less.
Want to know another failure? People who seem to think that we are running below replacment rates.
We're still adding, and as long as there is the celebration of Duggarism, we still will.
Now, if I were to look into my scrying mirror to predict how we can support even more people, how about this.....
In the world of the future, assuming that we don't accidentally kill ourselves off, we will be able to support many more people even than now, futrher proving Malthus wrong.
Humans have long since obliterated most other living creatures, and spread out to most livable space on the earth, and found moving underground as a cost effective place to creat more living room. To feed this number of people, millions of acres of surfce area are filled with vats of algae, with water and nutrients that bubble through the vats. Solar mirrors or nuclear powerd light generation allow great efficiencies of scale, and hundreds of thousands can be fed with the output of each vat. The resultant algae is dried and processed into different food shapes, flavors and textures.
Proteins as well, will be grown in vats.
Fresh water will be needed, so nuclear powered desalination plants will be needed. Most of the surface will be used to provide food and water to the now subterranean human race.
Limitations to population growth will be amount of space that people can occupy. As we build down, efficient air conditioning will be needed to keep temperature and humidity at life sustining levels.
I'm making a wild-ass guess of a few trillion people.
As well, instead of the present day size of humans, we can be genetically engineerd to be much smaller. This would have the added advantage of humans using less food per capita, as well as allowing each level of the earth to be at a smaller heights, important as we bore down to create new areas , as each lower level in a sphere has less available area.
Perhaps we can double the number after the big people die off (another interesting issue, with some people believing humans may soon become immortal.
It will be like turning the earth into a sort of reverse Dyson sphere, the energy still coming from the outside, but with many internal shell levels.
And that is within the llimitations of anything I can imagine, humanity could become cave dwellers in the future, and extrapolation of present day technology. Of course, things come along that no one can imagine - all of my ideas are technically feasible using improvements in what we know now.
That would prove Malthus wrong for a long, long time.
Doesn't sound like my idea of fun, but hey, it's almost like a lot of us living in Mom's basement, surviving on Cheetos and Red Bull. Ahead of the curve.
It would help me believe this if you could point out "crap" hardware, explain why it's crap, and show that BSD developers decided not to support it because it was crap, with reference to mailing list messages.
Good hardware = Whatever works with BSD
Crap hardware = Whatever doesn't work with BSD
As long as it doesn't have systemd, some users will love it, warts and all.
I agree that is complete bullshit, but your experience mirrors every Linux experience I've had in the last decade. I try and try to get basic things to work, and they just never do. Actually, Linux worked *better* for me 10 years ago than it has in the last few, so I just stick to BSD. I don't dislike Linux by any means, it just doesn't work for me.
What on earth happened? In a build problem program I was having recently in Mint, I installed and compiled a program I needed badly on several computers, after Installing Linux Mint 17.3, Lubuntu, Xubuntu, and Ubuntu Mate.
The machines were a dual core Dell Optiplex, a eePC netbook, a Toshiba Satellite, and one of those damned Vista basic computers. Install was from a USB thumbdrive for the Dell, and DVDs for the others.
All of them worked perfectly in that Rogues gallery of computers and distros. Were you trying to install without internet access? That can be a big issue with drivers.
I've been trying to figure this one out for quite a while now.
That's funny. I'm an OpenBSD user and I'm saying this seriously -- you've just summarized my experience with Linux. I tried using a Linux distro and after lots of pain came back to OpenBSD which has been so much easier to use (once you get past the bare bones installation. I'll admit).
Imposing BSD upon Linux? This isn't trying to be a smartass (I'm an ass, but not smart) I don't have so much experience with BSD, but I've noticed that Windows users trying to use Linux often have issues when they try to use the knowledge they've acquired in Windowsworld and try to force it on Linux.
Ubuntu isn't perfect, but why would anyone want to bring this experience to Linux?
Want to know why? Because some Linux users are so frothing at the mouth about systemd, that they go right to their happy place when BSD is mentioned.
I've also looked at BSD, and all your issues are spot-on. To put up with the crap you have to put up with in BSD is not worth whatever advantage there is to losing systemd.
side note - I was having an issue compiling a critical program in Linux Mint 17.3, so I tried out Ubuntu Mate. Worked nicely, and quite configurable, with a nice GUI. I'm not so certain that the original build problem wasn't my fault, but I was happy enough with UMate that I kept it.
The edge of space is 328,000 feet (100km). They're only going up 90,000 feet. That's less than a third of the way. "Oh, look! I'm on the second floor. I'm on the edge of space!"
You gotta admit, it's the biggest argument for the metric system when the boundary of space is right at 100 km!
Regardless of my lame joke, this is reminiscent of the high altitude balloon launches performed by schools along with Radio Amateurs. These activities are a lot of fun as well. Teaches the kids a lot about working in teams, solving engineering issues in packaging, payload constraints, tracking, and working within regulations.
And maybe one of these kids will figure out a better way of getting amateur science higher than the second floor.
must be fun to be a journalist and copy-paste news articles from Australia's ABC on your site and pose as a legitimate journalism, can we have the source of these copy-paste hack jobs articles instead? please mods....
Ummm, that's how this slashdot thing works. You gotta be a first timer.
Make a suitable teeny-tiny 8-pin connector that has the key features of the current jack, namely that you can't plug it in wrong and you can't just "pull it out" thanks to the locking tab.
Then have low-cost adapters that convert it into a standard RJ-45.
The advantage of this is you can also create standard, small, self-contained USB2/3, USB-C, or what-not-to-"new"-Ethernet-adapters that fit in a thin form-factor from the computer to the wall.
It might look like this:
[RJ-45 wall jack] [RJ45 to "thin" adapter"] [Ethernet wire with "thin" adapters at both ends] ["thin"-adapter ethernet to USB2/3 or USB-C adapter] [computer].
For the data center and other places where you typically crimp your own cables, continue to use existing wiring standards.
For your "go bag" have a variety of male-to-female adapters of both "thin" and "classic" varieties, much like techs used to have 9- and 25-pin serial adapters in various gender configurations in their "go bag" back in the day.
This is supposed to be a solution? Sounds like everyone making their own proprietary ethernet connectors. I remember the days of having to have a ton of adapters some which were never used, but you'd never know....
Your pod idea is interesting, but the likelihood that in 30 minutes, two nerds on/. thought of the bio-accumulation hazard,while the developers did not, is increasingly small.
Not really. most folks think in a how it will work mode, while only a few thing of reasons why it my not. I used to piss of people all the time in meetings by pointing out simple show stoppers while they were all running with pie in the sky awesomeness of the concept.
It will happen. In the end, there will be no-one left but the One Percenters. Humankind will comprise of only them, the.01% richest people and their entourage, which will oversee the machines and reduced infrastructure to support their post-scarcity lifestyle. For the rest of us, the mass graves await.
Welcome to Planet Kanye-Trump-Kardashian.
What the hell is th epoint of that if you don't have teh mass of poor people under you? Hell if everyone is wealthy, everyone will be just as poor as everyone else.
Man, I've been telling people that if they don't like shit like this, they should just move on and get over it. No need to get in a fuss about something you didn't even attend and only have context from people who get paid per click to post the most outrageous shit so they can get views.
The question is, who is "getting in a fuss over it".
Considering that some people do, it's fascinating the fuss that some folks are gtting over my post, which seems to be a real trigger for some folks.
Has it been offensive? Has it been threatening? I'll repost it here, and in the spirit of learning, I would love to have you point out why I should be told to shut up twice now. Here it is,...:
from my original post:
"You raise a very good question. Who does approve these stories? It would seem that they are terribly unpopular, and most people who comment are mostly people who are simply annoyed at yeat another in a long line of stories that always condense down to all males are disgusting pigs.
I've been here for a bit as well, and this topic is the sewer of Slashdot something I hope would have diminished after Dice gave up the ghost.
It isn't that it is not ever news for nerds, but if anyone is foolish enough ot think that this constant reportage of whining is going to help things, they are not even wrong."
The offesnsive issues in my post are? Eagerly awaiting youre reply.
No, the owner of the car should get regular car insurance, and then the insurance company will take up the responsibility for the damages. Of course, if the insurance company can argue that google has been grossly negligent in some case, they can take them to court.
If these cars are as good as they are claimed to be, no liability insurance is needed.
So Malthus will always be wrong? The world can sustain an infinite number of people forever?
Malthus will always be wrong/a>
Um huh. Seems like the famines in China around 1960 were an example of running past sustainability.
And while it's fun to point out the below replacement birth rates in some countries, I hope you aren't arguing that there isn't any population increase.
Oh - wait, I know - the famines like in China were a natural adjustment that proves Malthus wrong. After all, people dying of starvation is a completely natural thing.
So, what is the secret to making sure that automation does not take over every conceivable job? Maybe not force the cost of labor so high, as a first thought.
This is going to happen no what the minimum wage is. It's up to us to keep it from disrupting society as it happens.
Minimum wage jobs are not MEANT to provide a "living wage." Those jobs are for part-time jobs for kids in high school. A true living wage comes from having skills.
Sorry, that is a bogus argument that I hear all of the time. You can make the same argument the whole way up the food chain. I don't know what you do for a living, but If I did, I could mke a fine argument that you are being paid too much.
That's why the job creators have figured out that they can bring people form other countries ove to replace you. Its a weird form of the employee as the enemy, the cancer upon the system that must be eliminated at all costs. Amazingly a lot of employees buy into it. Some of us buy into it until we're replaced by that guy from India who we have to train. Just be happy that your replacement will be helping the economy making American corporations more profitable. the perfect system.And once you are replaced, that minimum wage job at a fast food joint might just be your next job. Agitate for how bad it is then.
And it will work for awhile, until one day the job creators wake up and no overpaid Americans can afford their shit any more. Because they aren't working any more, or are now at McDonald's and on Guvmint assistance and food stamps.
Slashdot Mirror
There's valid good-faith questioning, and then there's bad-faith denial. Usually they're not hard to tell apart.
We really do need some scientific questioning about what's happening but tragically that gets drowned out in the denial.
Obviously, If someone wanted to question AGW, there are ways to do it.
You come up with a hypothesis. That would be something like "The greenhouse effect fails at global scales because of radiative reflection by clouds.".
Okay, now you have your hypothesis. So you come up with a rationale and a pla of how you are going to test it.
I'd say first measurements of radiation reflected by clouds might be taken by satellite to get a baseline. then over years, do large scale testing with amounts of cloud cover, and extrapolate.
the concept is that when land and ocean warm up, there will be more water put into the atmosphere, and cloud cover will increase. The increased reflection will re-radiate more of the sun's insolation back into space. This will then have a cooling effect that will tend to reduce the average temperature. This will act as more of a regulator than anything else. The earth's temperature will tend to be very stable, on a global scale.
Put together a proposal, and look for funding. After getting funding, proceed with the experiment and see how it turns out. If you refute AGW, you are going to get a Nobel prize.
GIven the amount of money spent to deny AGW, some of that might be spent to fund research like this. But it isn't.
And there you go. I've actually provided an actual idea for the refutation of AGW, and a really brief outline of the experiment to confirm it. This is more than anything I've seen by deniers. At best, they cherry pick research done by others, and engage in a false dilemma. At worst, they look outside the window and say "Brrrr, cold today - so much for Global Warming!"
And here are some more fucking facts: Jesus died on the cross for your sins, and he rose from the ashes. These facts cannot be debated, they are simply history. When you "deny" Jesus, you are going to Hell. Sound familiar? If you truly believed in what you would say you would never ride in a car, fly in an aeroplane, or use a computer again. After all, they all use energy that is polluting the environment.
You forgot that the earth was created in October 4004 BC, and all of its creatures were created as they are today.
Oh, and that gawd put all those fossils in the ground to test us just like he told Abraham to kill his son. And that the four corners of the earth mentiond in the bible proves the earth is flat.
What science? From the scientists who studied at these contaminated institutions?
This is special pleading.. Who are these 'real' scientists you speak of? I'm willing to bet they graduated from such schools, probably with high honors. This legitimacy is marred by the compromised state of the university system, most of which pushes ideology first, critical thought second. That shit has to stop.
Ahh, you show your true denialist roots. I knew we could flush you out.
Give me the citations of the contamination. Hell, the university where I worked is considered by the lefties as being in bed with the energy industry. Only difference is, the scientists believe in science, which you do not.
I'll take that back as soon as you show me the citations of the "contaminated universities" and the proof that AGW doesn't exist.
As well, we might discuss how your political beliefs trumps physics. That, by the way, is called Lysenkoism.
That's it, use your mod points you evil fucking assholes. Waste them all, but it won't change the fact that the univese doesn't owe your precious oil economy one fucking favor. CO2 traps energy, assholes, no matter how many mod points and trolling actions you use to try to deny it.
Chillaxe dude. The denialists are using the only tool they have left, to try to yell louder than you do. Your posts don't go away, and I've found in climate news here, it helps to surf at 0.
At this point, so much silt has been stirred, it's hard to know who's telling the truth, if anyone. If scientists want more credibility, they need to start flushing out the ideological charge embedded in universities where they study. Sure, Saud and Koch are hardly objective, but neither are the blowhards at the ivy league.
There is a lot of science out there to read. And trying to invalidate physics by casting aspersions on those who practice it is pretty disingenuous.
There really isn't much left to argue about, either greenhouse gases are greenhouse gases, or they aren't. With some 800 terawatts of radiative forcing in the atmosphere. (1.6 watts per square meter) since 1750, something happens somewhere.
Here's one report - http://news.mit.edu/2010/expla... - where is the blowhardism in it? It's about as simple as can be made. I see no political or monetary agenda. Do you?
what is more, the denialists tend to dreadfully underestimate the money for the research and the scientists salaries. That's a hilarious excuse.
But really, it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny. The basic physics is irrefutable, you can prove the energy retention characteristic of the chemical composition of an atmosphere in your basement. Grade school children do it all the time in school science fairs.
Really, all you are left with is proving that the effect doesn''t exist in large scale systems.
And the research for that is vanishingly small. Even one of the last gasp "refutations" of AGW is the measurements of air temperatures in the troposphere versus satellite discrepancies. Which have long since been brought into correlation, but are still being drug up as a strange sort of false dilemma by deniers.
which by the way, the troposphere is not the surface.
I've always challenged deniers to provide the cites for the refutation of AGW. So far, everything has been pretty easy to refute, either by later research, or sad to say, sometimes deliberate falsification.
And no, the kooks who say the world will end are almost certainly wrong - Something will be here until the sun goes red giant. But things will change. We have a sneak preview of it going on right now. The city of Miami in Florida is already undergoing flooding every spring tide at present levels. The water is there - that cannot be denied. You can walk in it on the street, and it's salt water. http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/H...
http://www.local10.com/news/lo...
These are not from storm surges, these are from a completely natural event. Just higher than it used to be.
And that's just one part of it.
So if you actually are interested in real research, with none of the blowhardism you hate, it's all out there. But the denialists are pretty much now relegated to the same part of humanity as creationists and it's brother Intelligent design, Vaxxers, moon landing conspiracists, and tobacco industry lawyers.
Right, that is because you took part of what I said, added on something totally absurd that is in the opposite direction than my comments were going, and found that the thing I said, plus the thing I didn't say that you added, don't make any sense together.
That should have told you not to add in crap about what I assume is a mobile game.
If you haven't yet comprehended my point, it might be premature to try to expand it. ;)
I comprehend much. I also comprehend what the Facebook woman said. I fully comprehend what you wrote.
What I really really disagree with you on is your completely wrong idea that going to the moon did not press any limits. A response like you made deserves at the very least an incredulous response, sarcasm is just as good though.
To be brutally honest, your idea that going to the moon wasn't pressing the limits isn't only not even wrong, it is clueless. I am firmly convinced that you are completely clueless. There's no sarcasm, but opinion based upon experience. I might be wrong, but I didn't make the idiotic statement in the first place.
So I responded mocking you for your stupidity. Sometimes it is kinder to be sarcastic than call a person out like I am now. And exactly what I would expect from people who stare at their phones all day long. Hence my sarcastic reaction. And you have the unmitigated nerve coupled with large doses of duh to question my powers of comprehension? You are reaching the bottom of the whoosh barrel, my dear fellow. Redeem yourself if you can, what do you think presses the outer limits of mankind?
>Going to the moon didn't press any limits.
Very easy to say in retrospect, 40+ years later when SW does't run from ropes of magnetic cores and there's more compute power in a cheap watch then in the entire Apollo stack.
If poster could look up from his apps for a second, maybe go down to Kennedy Space center, and see just what they did at the time - and in truth are still doing, it might possibly impress him enough that he wouldn't think that Candy Crush is the epitome of humankind. That apps somehow are moving humanity toward a bright new future.
If that sounds sarcastic - yup - it was meant to. That the F1 rocket engine was designed and built when it was, using the incredibly primitive design tools of the day, ranks among mankind's greatest achievements, like it or not.
But today, Facebook and Twitter are the crowning acheivement of humanity.
No, no - they are not. Not even remotely, its the small minded success of small minded people. There is a whole world - nay - a whole universe out there, both beautiful and fascinating, if only we'd look up from the stupid gaddamned phone for a moment.
Going to the moon didn't press any limits.
I'm not certain I understand. It sounds like you are saying making Candy Crush Saga is the equivalent of going to the moon.
Malthus will always be wrong, because he neglected many important factors.
He might someday 'be right', but only in the 'broken clock' way.
The issue with Malthus is that like so many people have done for just about ever, he didn't take into consideration the fact that technology moves on.
As a cleric living at the beginning of the industrial revolution, he did not correctly predict just how much that revolution would allow more people to be supported.
Then the so called green revolution came along. Another technology improvement that allows more people to be fed for less.
Want to know another failure? People who seem to think that we are running below replacment rates.
http://www.worldometers.info/w...
We're still adding, and as long as there is the celebration of Duggarism, we still will.
Now, if I were to look into my scrying mirror to predict how we can support even more people, how about this.....
In the world of the future, assuming that we don't accidentally kill ourselves off, we will be able to support many more people even than now, futrher proving Malthus wrong.
Humans have long since obliterated most other living creatures, and spread out to most livable space on the earth, and found moving underground as a cost effective place to creat more living room. To feed this number of people, millions of acres of surfce area are filled with vats of algae, with water and nutrients that bubble through the vats. Solar mirrors or nuclear powerd light generation allow great efficiencies of scale, and hundreds of thousands can be fed with the output of each vat. The resultant algae is dried and processed into different food shapes, flavors and textures.
Proteins as well, will be grown in vats.
Fresh water will be needed, so nuclear powered desalination plants will be needed. Most of the surface will be used to provide food and water to the now subterranean human race. Limitations to population growth will be amount of space that people can occupy. As we build down, efficient air conditioning will be needed to keep temperature and humidity at life sustining levels.
I'm making a wild-ass guess of a few trillion people.
As well, instead of the present day size of humans, we can be genetically engineerd to be much smaller. This would have the added advantage of humans using less food per capita, as well as allowing each level of the earth to be at a smaller heights, important as we bore down to create new areas , as each lower level in a sphere has less available area.
Perhaps we can double the number after the big people die off (another interesting issue, with some people believing humans may soon become immortal.
It will be like turning the earth into a sort of reverse Dyson sphere, the energy still coming from the outside, but with many internal shell levels.
And that is within the llimitations of anything I can imagine, humanity could become cave dwellers in the future, and extrapolation of present day technology. Of course, things come along that no one can imagine - all of my ideas are technically feasible using improvements in what we know now.
That would prove Malthus wrong for a long, long time.
Doesn't sound like my idea of fun, but hey, it's almost like a lot of us living in Mom's basement, surviving on Cheetos and Red Bull. Ahead of the curve.
:-)
It would help me believe this if you could point out "crap" hardware, explain why it's crap, and show that BSD developers decided not to support it because it was crap, with reference to mailing list messages.
Good hardware = Whatever works with BSD
Crap hardware = Whatever doesn't work with BSD
As long as it doesn't have systemd, some users will love it, warts and all.
I agree that is complete bullshit, but your experience mirrors every Linux experience I've had in the last decade. I try and try to get basic things to work, and they just never do. Actually, Linux worked *better* for me 10 years ago than it has in the last few, so I just stick to BSD. I don't dislike Linux by any means, it just doesn't work for me.
What on earth happened? In a build problem program I was having recently in Mint, I installed and compiled a program I needed badly on several computers, after Installing Linux Mint 17.3, Lubuntu, Xubuntu, and Ubuntu Mate.
The machines were a dual core Dell Optiplex, a eePC netbook, a Toshiba Satellite, and one of those damned Vista basic computers. Install was from a USB thumbdrive for the Dell, and DVDs for the others.
All of them worked perfectly in that Rogues gallery of computers and distros. Were you trying to install without internet access? That can be a big issue with drivers.
I've been trying to figure this one out for quite a while now.
That's funny. I'm an OpenBSD user and I'm saying this seriously -- you've just summarized my experience with Linux. I tried using a Linux distro and after lots of pain came back to OpenBSD which has been so much easier to use (once you get past the bare bones installation. I'll admit).
Imposing BSD upon Linux? This isn't trying to be a smartass (I'm an ass, but not smart) I don't have so much experience with BSD, but I've noticed that Windows users trying to use Linux often have issues when they try to use the knowledge they've acquired in Windowsworld and try to force it on Linux.
Ubuntu isn't perfect, but why would anyone want to bring this experience to Linux?
Want to know why? Because some Linux users are so frothing at the mouth about systemd, that they go right to their happy place when BSD is mentioned.
I've also looked at BSD, and all your issues are spot-on. To put up with the crap you have to put up with in BSD is not worth whatever advantage there is to losing systemd.
side note - I was having an issue compiling a critical program in Linux Mint 17.3, so I tried out Ubuntu Mate. Worked nicely, and quite configurable, with a nice GUI. I'm not so certain that the original build problem wasn't my fault, but I was happy enough with UMate that I kept it.
The edge of space is 328,000 feet (100km). They're only going up 90,000 feet. That's less than a third of the way. "Oh, look! I'm on the second floor. I'm on the edge of space!"
You gotta admit, it's the biggest argument for the metric system when the boundary of space is right at 100 km!
Regardless of my lame joke, this is reminiscent of the high altitude balloon launches performed by schools along with Radio Amateurs. These activities are a lot of fun as well. Teaches the kids a lot about working in teams, solving engineering issues in packaging, payload constraints, tracking, and working within regulations.
And maybe one of these kids will figure out a better way of getting amateur science higher than the second floor.
must be fun to be a journalist and copy-paste news articles from Australia's ABC on your site and pose as a legitimate journalism, can we have the source of these copy-paste hack jobs articles instead? please mods....
Ummm, that's how this slashdot thing works. You gotta be a first timer.
Yeah, the crap about "pushing mankind to its outer limits" is hard to read. Is that really what engineering does?
Well a little. But I don near shit myself when includedn in the quote was "The impact of engineers goes well beyond the mobile apps, the gadgets,
Because yeh - once upon a time we went to the moon, using simple computers and slide rules. That's pressing the limits.
Now pressing the limits is writing apps. http://img.memecdn.com/Cutting...
Make a suitable teeny-tiny 8-pin connector that has the key features of the current jack, namely that you can't plug it in wrong and you can't just "pull it out" thanks to the locking tab.
Then have low-cost adapters that convert it into a standard RJ-45.
The advantage of this is you can also create standard, small, self-contained USB2/3, USB-C, or what-not-to-"new"-Ethernet-adapters that fit in a thin form-factor from the computer to the wall.
It might look like this:
[RJ-45 wall jack] [RJ45 to "thin" adapter"] [Ethernet wire with "thin" adapters at both ends] ["thin"-adapter ethernet to USB2/3 or USB-C adapter] [computer].
For the data center and other places where you typically crimp your own cables, continue to use existing wiring standards.
For your "go bag" have a variety of male-to-female adapters of both "thin" and "classic" varieties, much like techs used to have 9- and 25-pin serial adapters in various gender configurations in their "go bag" back in the day.
This is supposed to be a solution? Sounds like everyone making their own proprietary ethernet connectors. I remember the days of having to have a ton of adapters some which were never used, but you'd never know....
Your pod idea is interesting, but the likelihood that in 30 minutes, two nerds on /. thought of the bio-accumulation hazard,while the developers did not, is increasingly small.
Not really. most folks think in a how it will work mode, while only a few thing of reasons why it my not. I used to piss of people all the time in meetings by pointing out simple show stoppers while they were all running with pie in the sky awesomeness of the concept.
Flying cars for everyone!
It will happen. In the end, there will be no-one left but the One Percenters. Humankind will comprise of only them, the .01% richest people and their entourage, which will oversee the machines and reduced infrastructure to support their post-scarcity lifestyle. For the rest of us, the mass graves await.
Welcome to Planet Kanye-Trump-Kardashian.
What the hell is th epoint of that if you don't have teh mass of poor people under you? Hell if everyone is wealthy, everyone will be just as poor as everyone else.
This will not do!
Man, I've been telling people that if they don't like shit like this, they should just move on and get over it. No need to get in a fuss about something you didn't even attend and only have context from people who get paid per click to post the most outrageous shit so they can get views.
The question is, who is "getting in a fuss over it".
Considering that some people do, it's fascinating the fuss that some folks are gtting over my post, which seems to be a real trigger for some folks.
Has it been offensive? Has it been threatening? I'll repost it here, and in the spirit of learning, I would love to have you point out why I should be told to shut up twice now. Here it is,...:
from my original post: "You raise a very good question. Who does approve these stories? It would seem that they are terribly unpopular, and most people who comment are mostly people who are simply annoyed at yeat another in a long line of stories that always condense down to all males are disgusting pigs.
I've been here for a bit as well, and this topic is the sewer of Slashdot something I hope would have diminished after Dice gave up the ghost.
It isn't that it is not ever news for nerds, but if anyone is foolish enough ot think that this constant reportage of whining is going to help things, they are not even wrong."
The offesnsive issues in my post are? Eagerly awaiting youre reply.
No, the owner of the car should get regular car insurance, and then the insurance company will take up the responsibility for the damages. Of course, if the insurance company can argue that google has been grossly negligent in some case, they can take them to court.
If these cars are as good as they are claimed to be, no liability insurance is needed.
She needs a new hair style.
So Malthus will always be wrong? The world can sustain an infinite number of people forever?
Malthus will always be wrong /a>
Um huh. Seems like the famines in China around 1960 were an example of running past sustainability.
And while it's fun to point out the below replacement birth rates in some countries, I hope you aren't arguing that there isn't any population increase.
Oh - wait, I know - the famines like in China were a natural adjustment that proves Malthus wrong. After all, people dying of starvation is a completely natural thing.
So, what is the secret to making sure that automation does not take over every conceivable job? Maybe not force the cost of labor so high, as a first thought.
This is going to happen no what the minimum wage is. It's up to us to keep it from disrupting society as it happens.
Minimum wage jobs are not MEANT to provide a "living wage." Those jobs are for part-time jobs for kids in high school. A true living wage comes from having skills.
Sorry, that is a bogus argument that I hear all of the time. You can make the same argument the whole way up the food chain. I don't know what you do for a living, but If I did, I could mke a fine argument that you are being paid too much.
That's why the job creators have figured out that they can bring people form other countries ove to replace you. Its a weird form of the employee as the enemy, the cancer upon the system that must be eliminated at all costs. Amazingly a lot of employees buy into it. Some of us buy into it until we're replaced by that guy from India who we have to train. Just be happy that your replacement will be helping the economy making American corporations more profitable. the perfect system.And once you are replaced, that minimum wage job at a fast food joint might just be your next job. Agitate for how bad it is then.
And it will work for awhile, until one day the job creators wake up and no overpaid Americans can afford their shit any more. Because they aren't working any more, or are now at McDonald's and on Guvmint assistance and food stamps.