Cosmic irony would be that wealth is used to save the lost rather than gain the stars.
I love space opera as much as the next gnerd, but unless Einstein was seriously wrong we're never going to gain the stars.
A life-long one-way trip to the nearest neighbors may be feasible, but it's not likely that anyone will every want to pay for it, and even less likely that there will be anywhere to live once we got there.
I agree 100% with this comment. In the end some form of life will survive, I even think that humans will survive. We will just shrink our population and lose our advancements in technology, we will be cavemen again...
Runaway GW could turn the planet into a desert, with no life but microbes (if any). I think some planetologists think that's how Mars got its wonderful climate.
Barring that, I don't think we'll be reduced to cavemen. We'll just have more wars and social disturbances, as the agricultural/hydraulic "haves" become "have-nots", and vice versa.
And of course, we'll have to start moving our coastal cities to higher ground in 50-100 years.
A friend in Reno says the mountains (between Reno and Lake Tahoe) aren't even snowcapped this year; that it looks more like the first dusting they usually get in September or October.
Of course, lack of snow in winter may just mean *dry*, not warm. Lack of snow doesn't disprove GW any more than last year's storms prove it. Receding glaciers is a different matter, if it continues year after year. Already 5-10 years ago they were saying that Glacier National Park had lost half its glaciers. And this kind of thing has been happening all around the world.
So basically the projections were wrong, but the culprit is the evil consumer who does not recycle his soup can, not the guy who made the projections in the first place.
Unless God himself gave the schedule for those glaciers to melt, the notion of having them melting "earlier than expected" is a joke.
We have consistently discovered that the IPCC's reports on GW are too conservative. Everything is happening faster than the "alarmists" have been predicting.
The article (yes, I RTFA) says very little about science other than climate change - What about alternative energy (regardless of greenhouse gases), computers, space exploration, advances in transportation, standard of living, food generation, medical care, etc.
But politicians don't win primaries by taking a stance on the P = NP question.
Global warming denial is rife among Republican presidential candidates because they oppose any policy that might inhibit rich people's ability to make money at everyone else's expense. And evolution denial, because they realize that fundamentalist Christians have disproportionate influence in the primaries.
When someone starts telling his followers that God told him P != NP, or someone figures out that one conclusion or the other will cost someone some money, *then* it will become part of the science-denying political agenda. Meanwhile, no politician has any reason to give a shit.
The Democrat leaders tend to be nuetral - neither pro nor against..
The Democrat political agenda is hard to grok. I suspect it boils down to "if I don't say or do anything, maybe no one will have a reason to vote against me".
The canadians "walked away" from Kyoto, as the result of a decision from a prime minister who believes the earth is 6000 year olds. He also fired his science advisor nearly 2 years ago and is in the process of gutting anything that has to do with science.
See? Even the Canadians have figured out that the USA is going about it right!
I would also note (before we both get modded into oblivion for not toeing the line), that all the solutions amount to taking money from "rich" people and giving it to "poor" people - not actually doing anything. Sort of like the entire thing was concocted to force wealth distribution.
Actually, the people who are pocketing the profits of not doing something about it are playing the "socialize risk, privatize profit" game. They know that when it comes to paying the bill for natural disasters or moving all our coastal cities to higher ground, it will be Joe Taxpayer who has to foot the bill.
Besides, how come these people who like to advertise themselves as "wealth creators" are so set against policies that will create lots of jobs and business/investment opportunities?
Oh, that's right. They're only "wealth creators" for themselves.
refusals to abide with having outsiders vet their work
Uh... a very prominent denialist *scientist* just released his team's review of the evidence, and the report says that what we've been saying all along is in fact correct.
Presumably that story didn't make it past your evidence filter.
Fact: The climate has perpetually changed from the beginning of the Earth until present. Fact: The climate will continue to change until the end of time.
But it hasn't always been cozy for human beings. Some of us would like to keep it cozy for as long as we can.
What exactly are politicians supposed to do about something out of our control?
The pollution that's causing the current phenomenally fast global warming *is* under our control.
Do not participate in the secularization of America. We are, have been, and need to continue to be a Christian nation. Through God we will meet and defeat all other nations.
Forgive me for feeding such an obvious troll, but maybe this is a good time to call attention to the fact that there *isn't* any war on Christmas.
What's actually happening is that the social leaders who cry "war on Christmas" are waging a war on diversity and an inclusive society. Their message is: if you don't subscribe to my religion and celebrate the same holidays I do, you don't count, and companies that take account of your diverse views ought to be punished with boycotts.
BTW, even the Pope is waging a war on Christmas, by decrying its crass commercialization. Not exactly a timely message, but at least some religious leaders realize that there's nothing sacred about the way Christmas is celebrated by lots of people.
As for "meet and defeat all other nations", for most of the battles ever fought, both sides prayed to the same god(s) for victory.
The F22 program has cost around 66 billion dollars. That's about equivalent to a mission to Mars and two copies of the Superconducting Supercollider. That's equivalent to about 130 rovers of the same type as Opportunity and Spirit (ignoring the economies of scale that would substantially reduce the cost of having a lot of them). Etc. Etc. Instead we get unworking jet fighters that are supposed to be better than our previous jet fighters which are already estimated to be better than any other anyone else has in the world. Great priorities.
Yes, but at least buying F22s puts all that money in the right pockets.
To be fair, in a communist country, the arms manufacturer would BE the government, and accidents like these would be swept under the rug while you read news stories of how the glorious leadership has brought the country boldly into the technological future.
Yeah. Here in the USA the arms manufacturers have to share the government with the pharmaceuticals and banks.
And three letter agencies, hell, police in general, seem to want to ignore civil rights whenever it is convenient. They're the annoying things you need to work around, not uphold.
Civil rights don't justify vandalism.
If your cause isn't important enough to you to go to jail for it, leave the illegal parts of the activism to someone who does think it's important enough.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really just that simple. If the local environment is not conducive to human habitation, fucking move somewhere else.
And you'll welcome them into your country with open arms, right?
Cosmic irony would be that wealth is used to save the lost rather than gain the stars.
I love space opera as much as the next gnerd, but unless Einstein was seriously wrong we're never going to gain the stars.
A life-long one-way trip to the nearest neighbors may be feasible, but it's not likely that anyone will every want to pay for it, and even less likely that there will be anywhere to live once we got there.
I agree 100% with this comment. In the end some form of life will survive, I even think that humans will survive. We will just shrink our population and lose our advancements in technology, we will be cavemen again...
Runaway GW could turn the planet into a desert, with no life but microbes (if any). I think some planetologists think that's how Mars got its wonderful climate.
Barring that, I don't think we'll be reduced to cavemen. We'll just have more wars and social disturbances, as the agricultural/hydraulic "haves" become "have-nots", and vice versa.
And of course, we'll have to start moving our coastal cities to higher ground in 50-100 years.
Lack of snow doesn't disprove GW any more than last year's storms prove it.
Uhm... I got that backwards.
A friend in Reno says the mountains (between Reno and Lake Tahoe) aren't even snowcapped this year; that it looks more like the first dusting they usually get in September or October.
Of course, lack of snow in winter may just mean *dry*, not warm. Lack of snow doesn't disprove GW any more than last year's storms prove it. Receding glaciers is a different matter, if it continues year after year. Already 5-10 years ago they were saying that Glacier National Park had lost half its glaciers. And this kind of thing has been happening all around the world.
Normally slashdot opinions are above average on a given topic
That's a dubious claim. (In my opinion.)
and wanton libertarian bashing
Why should wanton libertarians be exempt from bashing?
So basically the projections were wrong, but the culprit is the evil consumer who does not recycle his soup can, not the guy who made the projections in the first place.
Unless God himself gave the schedule for those glaciers to melt, the notion of having them melting "earlier than expected" is a joke.
We have consistently discovered that the IPCC's reports on GW are too conservative. Everything is happening faster than the "alarmists" have been predicting.
Wow. Some A/C sure has been industrious with his trolling today. Did you just discover Slashdot?
The article (yes, I RTFA) says very little about science other than climate change - What about alternative energy (regardless of greenhouse gases), computers, space exploration, advances in transportation, standard of living, food generation, medical care, etc.
But politicians don't win primaries by taking a stance on the P = NP question.
Global warming denial is rife among Republican presidential candidates because they oppose any policy that might inhibit rich people's ability to make money at everyone else's expense. And evolution denial, because they realize that fundamentalist Christians have disproportionate influence in the primaries.
When someone starts telling his followers that God told him P != NP, or someone figures out that one conclusion or the other will cost someone some money, *then* it will become part of the science-denying political agenda. Meanwhile, no politician has any reason to give a shit.
The Democrat leaders tend to be nuetral - neither pro nor against..
The Democrat political agenda is hard to grok. I suspect it boils down to "if I don't say or do anything, maybe no one will have a reason to vote against me".
The "liberal elite"... who is that?
There are so few liberals left in this country that they *all* get to be part of the elite!
The canadians "walked away" from Kyoto, as the result of a decision from a prime minister who believes the earth is 6000 year olds.
He also fired his science advisor nearly 2 years ago and is in the process of gutting anything that has to do with science.
See? Even the Canadians have figured out that the USA is going about it right!
I would also note (before we both get modded into oblivion for not toeing the line), that all the solutions amount to taking money from "rich" people and giving it to "poor" people - not actually doing anything. Sort of like the entire thing was concocted to force wealth distribution.
Actually, the people who are pocketing the profits of not doing something about it are playing the "socialize risk, privatize profit" game. They know that when it comes to paying the bill for natural disasters or moving all our coastal cities to higher ground, it will be Joe Taxpayer who has to foot the bill.
Besides, how come these people who like to advertise themselves as "wealth creators" are so set against policies that will create lots of jobs and business/investment opportunities?
Oh, that's right. They're only "wealth creators" for themselves.
refusals to abide with having outsiders vet their work
Uh... a very prominent denialist *scientist* just released his team's review of the evidence, and the report says that what we've been saying all along is in fact correct.
Presumably that story didn't make it past your evidence filter.
Fact: The climate has perpetually changed from the beginning of the Earth until present. Fact: The climate will continue to change until the end of time.
But it hasn't always been cozy for human beings. Some of us would like to keep it cozy for as long as we can.
What exactly are politicians supposed to do about something out of our control?
The pollution that's causing the current phenomenally fast global warming *is* under our control.
No matter what you believe, there's never really a way to prove it by science alone in it's current state of study.
Religion is *designed* to be exempt from considerations of evidence.
Do not participate in the secularization of America. We are, have been, and need to continue to be a Christian nation. Through God we will meet and defeat all other nations.
Forgive me for feeding such an obvious troll, but maybe this is a good time to call attention to the fact that there *isn't* any war on Christmas.
What's actually happening is that the social leaders who cry "war on Christmas" are waging a war on diversity and an inclusive society. Their message is: if you don't subscribe to my religion and celebrate the same holidays I do, you don't count, and companies that take account of your diverse views ought to be punished with boycotts.
BTW, even the Pope is waging a war on Christmas, by decrying its crass commercialization. Not exactly a timely message, but at least some religious leaders realize that there's nothing sacred about the way Christmas is celebrated by lots of people.
As for "meet and defeat all other nations", for most of the battles ever fought, both sides prayed to the same god(s) for victory.
What happens when consumer spending DOESN'T rebound?
Consumer spending will go up when consumer earning goes up.
If one company offshores its work, that's smart. If they all do it, there's no one left with enough money to buy their products.
Your cell phone would use gears...
was a good price for a fighter jet.
Presumably the people who sell them.
I've been playing Novalogic's F-22 since 2001, and I've never experienced this oxygen issue. That pilot had something wrong with him.
You probably haven't been playing it at the same altitude.
The F22 program has cost around 66 billion dollars. That's about equivalent to a mission to Mars and two copies of the Superconducting Supercollider. That's equivalent to about 130 rovers of the same type as Opportunity and Spirit (ignoring the economies of scale that would substantially reduce the cost of having a lot of them). Etc. Etc. Instead we get unworking jet fighters that are supposed to be better than our previous jet fighters which are already estimated to be better than any other anyone else has in the world. Great priorities.
Yes, but at least buying F22s puts all that money in the right pockets.
To be fair, in a communist country, the arms manufacturer would BE the government, and accidents like these would be swept under the rug while you read news stories of how the glorious leadership has brought the country boldly into the technological future.
Yeah. Here in the USA the arms manufacturers have to share the government with the pharmaceuticals and banks.
And three letter agencies, hell, police in general, seem to want to ignore civil rights whenever it is convenient. They're the annoying things you need to work around, not uphold.
Civil rights don't justify vandalism.
If your cause isn't important enough to you to go to jail for it, leave the illegal parts of the activism to someone who does think it's important enough.
Sorry; I couldn't resist that. Maybe we'll see some interesting answers.