Yeah, it does tend to go that way. The problem of course is that the private car is a horribly inefficient mode of transport, both in terms of energy and capacity. A single light rail line that's designed well can take more passengers at peak than a multi-lane highway, for less energy and without congestion, meaning it's much quicker too. If we were to design a city from scratch now, we'd build electric public transport infrastructure (rail plus PRT or similar for the infill, pedestrian-friendly bits in between, etc) and fewer roads. And everyone would love living there - you'd only own cars if you had to go outside the city. Pity it's so hard to fit that into an existing city though.:-/
Also, I disagree with you on the comment "energy is not our problem" - energy is always the problem: solve that and you solve almost every other problem we have (water, transport, cheap manufacturing, etc). The reason for most wars is resources, and we have already had at least two wars I can think of in recent history about oil, both involving your country.:-) I really do hope that you are right about fusion, because it's one of the few really good options that we have, but it's still a good way off (and the end of oil is probably closer than most realise)... though I think solar has merits too.
I'm guessing those are car travel times? How many do you do on foot? How many would you do on foot if your car cost three times as much* to run? My one visit to California left me feeling a little intimidated as a pedestrian - being in the sprawl south of LA isn't a lot of fun when you're on foot (or having to rely on buses).
Otherwise - good on you! I agree about the "my own piece of sky" bit, too.
* (Or whatever amount it is that would discourage you from using a car).
Not quite sure how you figure that: energy-wise, rail is more efficient than sea (IIRC), and it's a shorter route, both in terms of time and distance. Certainly at the moment the trade doesn't go that way, but there's no decent route, so why would it?
I still reckon we should build partially-evacuated tunnels containing maglevs with linear electric motors to accelerate them... but maybe I'm still dreaming.:-)
As someone in New Zealand, my understanding of the law is that it can only be used against someone who is downloading copyrighted material for the purpose of making it available to others. In other words, if we watch something on YouTube we're not going to get snapped, but instead the law is going after P2P specifically. I would hazard a guess that if you're not uploading (or you're avoiding popular songs/movies that are more likely to be tracked), you probably won't show up on their radar. But, IANAL.:-)
Anyone I know whose behaviour has been changed by this law have simply moved to using online streaming sites more (i.e. download but not upload), though most people I have talked to about this have just gone "meh" and carried on, and would only stop or change behaviour at their second warning.
Also, from the article: '"This is based on RIANZ's notion that each track had probably been downloaded 90 times," he told iTnews. "There is nothing in the Copyright Act or the regulations for it that allow for this.”
'Beagle said the deterrent penalty of $NZ1250 was also surprisingly high. "It amounts to an attempt at US-style statutory damages, which we do not have in New Zealand."'
In other words, they were trying to overstep their authority anyway - good to hear that got dismissed. It's pretty nasty to read about the effect on the student's life though (not something you hear about often) - I think she has good case to go for damages against RIANZ, though again, IANAL... I wonder if the botched warnings were the reason that it got dropped?
Parent has been modded down to zero, but he does actually make a point: your tolerance only exists as far as it exists towards the person with whom you disagree the most. While it is an over-generalisation, there are quite a few people who express the view "be tolerant(tm) to everyone except if I think they're intolerant." To again somewhat over-generalise, this view seems to me to be more common in those who are "leftist" than others (YMMV).
(I put the sarcastic "(tm)" in there because "tolerance" has been taken recently to mean "don't say anything that might offend someone", whereas it actually - or used to - mean "being able to respectfully disagree"; tolerance only starts when you disagree).
You're generalising. Yes, many people seek spirituality for the sake of solace, but others also for the sake of truth - go read up on C.S. Lewis' conversion if you want a famous example: he tried to prove Christianty wrong, failed, and so gave in, eventually becoming a very strong advocate of it. He wasn't there because it was a nice feel-good club, he was there solely because he sought truth.
Also, while Hitler is an arguable case (depending on which quotes you pull, it's easy to paint him as either an atheist or a religious nut and argue the other quotes are just him pandering to the people), someone like Stalin very much supports his case. So actually, he didn't invalidate his whole point (also, as for the Hitler thing, his using religious overtones to win the populace but actually being an atheist is probably the more plausible case, as the reverse doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you consider the context - the Nazi party knew that controlling the churches was key to controlling the people, but, as I said, it is debatable).
"Used the same tricks as religion does" defeats your earlier argument that religion is a special case. I suggest that religion isn't a special case, except in so far as it touches the deepest part of what a person believes: so, maybe it's an easier route, but what you have just said suggests is that really it's the behaviours that are the problem, not the belief behind it.
(Ergo, if someone starts doing that sort of thing, get worried and back away, regardless of who they are).
This is actually quite insightful: something a lot of people miss is that many of the problems with religion are actually only problems because it gets mixed with something else (as parent noted, power hunger is the worst). I think it's a good reason why those with a religion need to question more: go back to the foundations of your belief system and dig deep, find out what it really says and whether the people above you in your organisation are matching it. Don't assume that because someone has the title, they're going to be right.
I'm a strong believer in the idea of separate spheres of influence, and while I wouldn't be one to post something highly inflammatory against another, I support the right of someone else to do so, even if I disagree with them, and would question what another believes (and expect the same). I think a spiritual belief is a highly enriching thing to have, but orders to march to war shouldn't be coming from your church/mosque/temple/synagogue/whatever: that is the domain of the governing body (who should themselves be separate to the judicial body, or the media, or the educational institutes, etc). I think we're strongest (and safest) when we're hearing from the largest number of different influences, not force-fed one party line.
I wonder if this might be the real reason that some in the Muslim world don't like critique of their prophet - it's not about religion as much as it's that they fear losing power and influence over their people if they can't control their intake of media? Islam, from what I've seen, in general makes for really nice societies (contrary to the hype we hear usually) but only if it's unchallenged - unlike several other belief systems, it doesn't work too well when in the minority (whereas I think Christianity is generally better when in the minority than when in the majority).
"Even Horizon Telescope" sounds pretty awesome. The EHT? Palindromic even!:-) I wonder who came up with that one and if the palindrome was deliberate...
I live in New Zealand, in a city known for how much it rains. And our reservoirs will be hitting bottom in very slightly past this timeframe unless some significant alternatives (not on current plans) are implemented. (This is environmental engineering modelling data I saw less than a week ago).
Water is a much bigger problem than most people realise.
One possible reason an advanced shower could become mainstream is if the cost of clean water goes high enough that it outweighs the technology to deliver it (which is quite possible in many parts of the world). Of course, given sufficient energy you can clean just about any water, so maybe the argument still stands...
On what evidence do you base that opinion? Go and find a top theology school and see whether you can beat them at philosophy and logic, then let me know if you still think that. I know people who are rational about religion and people who are irrational; the same applies for atheism (and most other subjects - politics for example!:-)
Generally though, those who say they can't see any rationality on the other side are the ones who either haven't talked to the other side or who aren't being rational themselves. I'm guessing you probably haven't met many smart Christians then.;-)
Don't buy it? Interesting. You might want to get out more and meet more people.:-)
Though, sarcasm aside, it is a valid question, but probably one that requires a longer answer than I could do justice to in a faceless/. posting.:-)
For me, it mainly comes down to two things: (1) I have looked at most of the major belief systems and spent a lot of time nutting them out to try to follow their logic through to conclusion, and found that all of them have something that they can't quite answer, but Christianity for me has the least "unanswered questions" (and has possible answers for those, even if some of the answers aren't very satisfying); (2) Remembering that most of what we think we know is uncertain and our understanding of science changes over time. Saying, "this proves that the Bible is wrong!" is something I have only heard from those who don't actually understand it - yes, there are some places where it's obvious that one or other of a literal interpretation of the Bible or our current understanding of science are in direct conflict, but I think it's less than most make it out to be. Thing is, places like Genesis actually aren't trying to be a science text book, and there are a number of ways that the two could reconcile (depending on a balance between how reliable our science is and how literally you take the text).
I feel sorry for those who have only seen anti-science, extremist Christians with the culture but not the reality (like Broun). Seeing that sort of thing, I am not surprised that people like you find it hard to think that some of us could be sane.:-) If you find the right sort of group (or book), you might be very surpised at how solid the logic is behind good theology, and how many of the questions people think defeat Christianity actually have sound answers.
Also, as an engineering student, I see how many experimental results are pretty shoddy and how many academics like to think they're right, rather than actually looking for true answers even if they're not what they wanted to hear.;-)
I made the comment "extremists in every direction" because I see every group - Christians, atheists, Muslims, pro- or anti-climate change groups, left- or right-wing politics, pro-life or pro-choice, others - all taking extreme viewpoints, rather than the more moderate "You know what, I think this, but I am actually going to listen to you and not be nasty about it, and respect the fact you think differently, as really, we don't have all the answers." Everyone seems to know it all, even on things that really aren't certain either way.
I value hearing from people with different viewpoints - it's enriching. I have realised that I don't know anyone with whom I agree on everything, and I certainly don't know everything - I know that some things I think are true won't be, just like everyone else (I'm just not certain what), so better not to be too arrogant about what I do know. Guys like the subject of the original article though don't seem open to listening to others, and it saddens me.
Also, if you can't see how some very vocal atheists are holding extremist viewpoints (as an aside, I was talking about views and ideas more than actions), I'm a little surprised. After all, atheism in it's strong form ("there is no god at all") is to assert something you actually cannot know. Also, this (and the article it came from).:-)
The only way (realistically) to do that is to change the voting system - it was done here in New Zealand (from First Past the Post to Mixed Member Proportional) - and while it has introduced a bunch of other issues (like, more crackpots in parliament), it also utterly derailed the "us vs them" two-party dominance and allowed for a mixed set of political views (which I think America desperately needs). Seeing things like this though, I don't think MMP would mean more crackpots in the US government than are already there...
"Reflects genuine religious faith?" Not of anyone I know. As a Christian and an Engineer who loves both God and science (yes, we exist - shock, horror), guys like this sadden and infuriate me. It may surprise some of the readership of/. but there are a lot of us who can actually both be rational and have faith, and who would deliberately vote against someone like this being on a science committee. I am starting to feel a little in the minority though: it's extremists in every direction.
You've got a skewed view of religion (probably due to people like Broun), and views like that only feed them into becoming more extreme. I think we'd all be better off if we calmed down and met in the middle somewhere to actually listen to each other, realising that it's ok to respect someone you disagree with (and ok to disagree with someone you respect).
After all, tolerance only begins when you disagree.
Also, there are more faith-based aid agencies than not (including some of the most effective), so you'd be making famine, disease and poverty worse, not better.
Ah, not sure where you get your logic from, but it is just as frightening that you got modded insightful as it is that morons like Broun get into public office. There are many who are both intellectually-strong and believe in God. By your logic, people like William Wilberforce or Newton shouldn't have had influence? So, you'd like a world with slavery and without physics?
Also, religion does not necesarily cause problems: Stalin (an atheist) was responsible for the deaths a good order of magnitude or so more of his own people than died in the Crusades and preceeding Muslim invasions combined.
Go read this: The God Fuse and learn that (a) every belief system can lead to being a dick, (b) there are a lot of sane, sensible people who believe different things to you.
I have wondered: a Dyson "sphere" is more likely going to be a swarm, with lots of gaps, but gaps that change with time as they orbit. Seeing as this is how we usually detect exoplanets, I wonder what the resulting starlight would look like? Maybe we'd be better looking for that, or would it show up with current analysis of planet-finding data, or would the brightness changes be too small to detect?
Also, there's no reason why you would leave the original planet intact - more reasons against than for, I would say (unless you're nostalgic).
It's been said, though this is Slashdot so why read before posting,:-) that Dyson's concept was more of a Dyson Swarm than a rigid sphere. A swarm of discrete orbitals is far more plausible than either a ring or a sphere.
Why would you want to hide? Look up "relativistic kill vehicles" - in space, a big target is very, very easy to destroy. Basically, you just point a big engine at it.
Having said that, "wasting" heat energy is often more efficient than building something to use it - your returns diminish to the point that eventually it takes more energy to build the collector than you're getting out of it. Look at cars or any other industry of ours (a nuclear power plant is an ideal example - they create lots of waste heat, and if we could use it, we would). Law of diminishing returns and all that.
Ergo, the only reason you would build near 100% efficient heat collection was if hiding was very valuable to you (in energy cost), but at that point, you'd be better off using the energy to expand your civilisation to another star system - i.e. create a "backup".:-) Ergo, if Dyson Spheres/Structures exist (debatable, even presupposing advanced civs), then they'll be visible.
Interestingly, finding a Dyson Sphere would suddenly make getting into space a global security concern - see my post above about the Prisoner's Dilemma, but basically: if they can build that, they can wipe a planet, so getting off-planet becomes a big priority. It might actually be one of the best things for Humanity - get us all outwardly-focused and forced to co-operate.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it does tend to go that way. The problem of course is that the private car is a horribly inefficient mode of transport, both in terms of energy and capacity. A single light rail line that's designed well can take more passengers at peak than a multi-lane highway, for less energy and without congestion, meaning it's much quicker too. If we were to design a city from scratch now, we'd build electric public transport infrastructure (rail plus PRT or similar for the infill, pedestrian-friendly bits in between, etc) and fewer roads. And everyone would love living there - you'd only own cars if you had to go outside the city. Pity it's so hard to fit that into an existing city though. :-/
Also, I disagree with you on the comment "energy is not our problem" - energy is always the problem: solve that and you solve almost every other problem we have (water, transport, cheap manufacturing, etc). The reason for most wars is resources, and we have already had at least two wars I can think of in recent history about oil, both involving your country. :-) I really do hope that you are right about fusion, because it's one of the few really good options that we have, but it's still a good way off (and the end of oil is probably closer than most realise)... though I think solar has merits too.
I'm guessing those are car travel times? How many do you do on foot? How many would you do on foot if your car cost three times as much* to run? My one visit to California left me feeling a little intimidated as a pedestrian - being in the sprawl south of LA isn't a lot of fun when you're on foot (or having to rely on buses).
Otherwise - good on you! I agree about the "my own piece of sky" bit, too.
* (Or whatever amount it is that would discourage you from using a car).
Not quite sure how you figure that: energy-wise, rail is more efficient than sea (IIRC), and it's a shorter route, both in terms of time and distance. Certainly at the moment the trade doesn't go that way, but there's no decent route, so why would it?
I still reckon we should build partially-evacuated tunnels containing maglevs with linear electric motors to accelerate them... but maybe I'm still dreaming. :-)
As someone in New Zealand, my understanding of the law is that it can only be used against someone who is downloading copyrighted material for the purpose of making it available to others. In other words, if we watch something on YouTube we're not going to get snapped, but instead the law is going after P2P specifically. I would hazard a guess that if you're not uploading (or you're avoiding popular songs/movies that are more likely to be tracked), you probably won't show up on their radar. But, IANAL. :-)
Anyone I know whose behaviour has been changed by this law have simply moved to using online streaming sites more (i.e. download but not upload), though most people I have talked to about this have just gone "meh" and carried on, and would only stop or change behaviour at their second warning.
Also, from the article: '"This is based on RIANZ's notion that each track had probably been downloaded 90 times," he told iTnews. "There is nothing in the Copyright Act or the regulations for it that allow for this.”
'Beagle said the deterrent penalty of $NZ1250 was also surprisingly high. "It amounts to an attempt at US-style statutory damages, which we do not have in New Zealand."'
In other words, they were trying to overstep their authority anyway - good to hear that got dismissed. It's pretty nasty to read about the effect on the student's life though (not something you hear about often) - I think she has good case to go for damages against RIANZ, though again, IANAL... I wonder if the botched warnings were the reason that it got dropped?
Parent has been modded down to zero, but he does actually make a point: your tolerance only exists as far as it exists towards the person with whom you disagree the most. While it is an over-generalisation, there are quite a few people who express the view "be tolerant(tm) to everyone except if I think they're intolerant." To again somewhat over-generalise, this view seems to me to be more common in those who are "leftist" than others (YMMV).
(I put the sarcastic "(tm)" in there because "tolerance" has been taken recently to mean "don't say anything that might offend someone", whereas it actually - or used to - mean "being able to respectfully disagree"; tolerance only starts when you disagree).
You're generalising. Yes, many people seek spirituality for the sake of solace, but others also for the sake of truth - go read up on C.S. Lewis' conversion if you want a famous example: he tried to prove Christianty wrong, failed, and so gave in, eventually becoming a very strong advocate of it. He wasn't there because it was a nice feel-good club, he was there solely because he sought truth.
Also, while Hitler is an arguable case (depending on which quotes you pull, it's easy to paint him as either an atheist or a religious nut and argue the other quotes are just him pandering to the people), someone like Stalin very much supports his case. So actually, he didn't invalidate his whole point (also, as for the Hitler thing, his using religious overtones to win the populace but actually being an atheist is probably the more plausible case, as the reverse doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you consider the context - the Nazi party knew that controlling the churches was key to controlling the people, but, as I said, it is debatable).
"Used the same tricks as religion does" defeats your earlier argument that religion is a special case. I suggest that religion isn't a special case, except in so far as it touches the deepest part of what a person believes: so, maybe it's an easier route, but what you have just said suggests is that really it's the behaviours that are the problem, not the belief behind it.
(Ergo, if someone starts doing that sort of thing, get worried and back away, regardless of who they are).
This is actually quite insightful: something a lot of people miss is that many of the problems with religion are actually only problems because it gets mixed with something else (as parent noted, power hunger is the worst). I think it's a good reason why those with a religion need to question more: go back to the foundations of your belief system and dig deep, find out what it really says and whether the people above you in your organisation are matching it. Don't assume that because someone has the title, they're going to be right.
I'm a strong believer in the idea of separate spheres of influence, and while I wouldn't be one to post something highly inflammatory against another, I support the right of someone else to do so, even if I disagree with them, and would question what another believes (and expect the same). I think a spiritual belief is a highly enriching thing to have, but orders to march to war shouldn't be coming from your church/mosque/temple/synagogue/whatever: that is the domain of the governing body (who should themselves be separate to the judicial body, or the media, or the educational institutes, etc). I think we're strongest (and safest) when we're hearing from the largest number of different influences, not force-fed one party line.
I wonder if this might be the real reason that some in the Muslim world don't like critique of their prophet - it's not about religion as much as it's that they fear losing power and influence over their people if they can't control their intake of media? Islam, from what I've seen, in general makes for really nice societies (contrary to the hype we hear usually) but only if it's unchallenged - unlike several other belief systems, it doesn't work too well when in the minority (whereas I think Christianity is generally better when in the minority than when in the majority).
"Even Horizon Telescope" sounds pretty awesome. The EHT? Palindromic even! :-) I wonder who came up with that one and if the palindrome was deliberate...
I live in New Zealand, in a city known for how much it rains. And our reservoirs will be hitting bottom in very slightly past this timeframe unless some significant alternatives (not on current plans) are implemented. (This is environmental engineering modelling data I saw less than a week ago).
Water is a much bigger problem than most people realise.
One possible reason an advanced shower could become mainstream is if the cost of clean water goes high enough that it outweighs the technology to deliver it (which is quite possible in many parts of the world). Of course, given sufficient energy you can clean just about any water, so maybe the argument still stands...
On what evidence do you base that opinion? Go and find a top theology school and see whether you can beat them at philosophy and logic, then let me know if you still think that. I know people who are rational about religion and people who are irrational; the same applies for atheism (and most other subjects - politics for example! :-)
Generally though, those who say they can't see any rationality on the other side are the ones who either haven't talked to the other side or who aren't being rational themselves. I'm guessing you probably haven't met many smart Christians then. ;-)
Don't buy it? Interesting. You might want to get out more and meet more people. :-)
Though, sarcasm aside, it is a valid question, but probably one that requires a longer answer than I could do justice to in a faceless /. posting. :-)
For me, it mainly comes down to two things: (1) I have looked at most of the major belief systems and spent a lot of time nutting them out to try to follow their logic through to conclusion, and found that all of them have something that they can't quite answer, but Christianity for me has the least "unanswered questions" (and has possible answers for those, even if some of the answers aren't very satisfying); (2) Remembering that most of what we think we know is uncertain and our understanding of science changes over time. Saying, "this proves that the Bible is wrong!" is something I have only heard from those who don't actually understand it - yes, there are some places where it's obvious that one or other of a literal interpretation of the Bible or our current understanding of science are in direct conflict, but I think it's less than most make it out to be. Thing is, places like Genesis actually aren't trying to be a science text book, and there are a number of ways that the two could reconcile (depending on a balance between how reliable our science is and how literally you take the text).
I feel sorry for those who have only seen anti-science, extremist Christians with the culture but not the reality (like Broun). Seeing that sort of thing, I am not surprised that people like you find it hard to think that some of us could be sane. :-) If you find the right sort of group (or book), you might be very surpised at how solid the logic is behind good theology, and how many of the questions people think defeat Christianity actually have sound answers.
Also, as an engineering student, I see how many experimental results are pretty shoddy and how many academics like to think they're right, rather than actually looking for true answers even if they're not what they wanted to hear. ;-)
Hope this helps. :-)
I made the comment "extremists in every direction" because I see every group - Christians, atheists, Muslims, pro- or anti-climate change groups, left- or right-wing politics, pro-life or pro-choice, others - all taking extreme viewpoints, rather than the more moderate "You know what, I think this, but I am actually going to listen to you and not be nasty about it, and respect the fact you think differently, as really, we don't have all the answers." Everyone seems to know it all, even on things that really aren't certain either way.
I value hearing from people with different viewpoints - it's enriching. I have realised that I don't know anyone with whom I agree on everything, and I certainly don't know everything - I know that some things I think are true won't be, just like everyone else (I'm just not certain what), so better not to be too arrogant about what I do know. Guys like the subject of the original article though don't seem open to listening to others, and it saddens me.
Also, if you can't see how some very vocal atheists are holding extremist viewpoints (as an aside, I was talking about views and ideas more than actions), I'm a little surprised. After all, atheism in it's strong form ("there is no god at all") is to assert something you actually cannot know. Also, this (and the article it came from). :-)
"525 lines of resolution is all that's needed"? That's myopic in at least two senses of the word...
The only way (realistically) to do that is to change the voting system - it was done here in New Zealand (from First Past the Post to Mixed Member Proportional) - and while it has introduced a bunch of other issues (like, more crackpots in parliament), it also utterly derailed the "us vs them" two-party dominance and allowed for a mixed set of political views (which I think America desperately needs). Seeing things like this though, I don't think MMP would mean more crackpots in the US government than are already there...
"Reflects genuine religious faith?" Not of anyone I know. As a Christian and an Engineer who loves both God and science (yes, we exist - shock, horror), guys like this sadden and infuriate me. It may surprise some of the readership of /. but there are a lot of us who can actually both be rational and have faith, and who would deliberately vote against someone like this being on a science committee. I am starting to feel a little in the minority though: it's extremists in every direction.
You've got a skewed view of religion (probably due to people like Broun), and views like that only feed them into becoming more extreme. I think we'd all be better off if we calmed down and met in the middle somewhere to actually listen to each other, realising that it's ok to respect someone you disagree with (and ok to disagree with someone you respect).
After all, tolerance only begins when you disagree.
Mod parent up.
And I fed the troll. Sigh.
Ah, not sure where you get your logic from, but it is just as frightening that you got modded insightful as it is that morons like Broun get into public office. There are many who are both intellectually-strong and believe in God. By your logic, people like William Wilberforce or Newton shouldn't have had influence? So, you'd like a world with slavery and without physics?
Also, religion does not necesarily cause problems: Stalin (an atheist) was responsible for the deaths a good order of magnitude or so more of his own people than died in the Crusades and preceeding Muslim invasions combined.
Go read this: The God Fuse and learn that (a) every belief system can lead to being a dick, (b) there are a lot of sane, sensible people who believe different things to you.
I have wondered: a Dyson "sphere" is more likely going to be a swarm, with lots of gaps, but gaps that change with time as they orbit. Seeing as this is how we usually detect exoplanets, I wonder what the resulting starlight would look like? Maybe we'd be better looking for that, or would it show up with current analysis of planet-finding data, or would the brightness changes be too small to detect?
Also, there's no reason why you would leave the original planet intact - more reasons against than for, I would say (unless you're nostalgic).
It's been said, though this is Slashdot so why read before posting, :-) that Dyson's concept was more of a Dyson Swarm than a rigid sphere. A swarm of discrete orbitals is far more plausible than either a ring or a sphere.
Why would you want to hide? Look up "relativistic kill vehicles" - in space, a big target is very, very easy to destroy. Basically, you just point a big engine at it.
Having said that, "wasting" heat energy is often more efficient than building something to use it - your returns diminish to the point that eventually it takes more energy to build the collector than you're getting out of it. Look at cars or any other industry of ours (a nuclear power plant is an ideal example - they create lots of waste heat, and if we could use it, we would). Law of diminishing returns and all that.
Ergo, the only reason you would build near 100% efficient heat collection was if hiding was very valuable to you (in energy cost), but at that point, you'd be better off using the energy to expand your civilisation to another star system - i.e. create a "backup". :-) Ergo, if Dyson Spheres/Structures exist (debatable, even presupposing advanced civs), then they'll be visible.
So, what are you (personally) doing to fix it? :-)
Interestingly, finding a Dyson Sphere would suddenly make getting into space a global security concern - see my post above about the Prisoner's Dilemma, but basically: if they can build that, they can wipe a planet, so getting off-planet becomes a big priority. It might actually be one of the best things for Humanity - get us all outwardly-focused and forced to co-operate.