SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
John R. Gillis writes in the NYT that to those of us who visit beaches only in summer, beaches seem as permanent a part of our natural heritage as the Rocky Mountains but shore dwellers know that beaches are the most transitory of landscapes, and sand beaches the most vulnerable of all. Today, 75 to 90 percent of the world’s natural sand beaches are disappearing, due partly to rising sea levels and increased storm action, but also to massive erosion caused by the human development of shores. The extent of this global crisis is obscured because so-called beach nourishment projects attempt to hold sand in place(PDF) and repair the damage by the time summer people return, creating the illusion of an eternal shore. But the market for mined sand in the US has become a billion-dollar annual business, growing at 10 percent a year since 2008. Interior mining operations use huge machines working in open pits to dig down under the earth’s surface to get sand left behind by ancient glaciers.
One might think that desert sand would be a ready substitute, but its grains are finer and smoother; they don’t adhere to rougher sand grains, and tend to blow away. As a result, the desert state of Saudi Arabia brings sand for sandblasting all the way from Australia. Huge sand mining operations are emerging worldwide, many of them illegal, happening out of sight and out of mind, as far as the developed world is concerned. "We need to stop taking sand for granted and think of it as an endangered natural resource," concludes Gillis. "Beach replenishment — the mining and trucking and dredging of sand to meet tourist expectations — must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, with environmental considerations taking top priority. Only this will ensure that the story of the earth will still have subsequent chapters told in grains of sand."
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday November 07 2014, @05:35PM
> When I see a biased submission (for example when I see "M$" or "republicrat" in the submission)
I would like to point out that the density of what we'll call "_gewg_ stories" is giving this place a certain slant which could turn off some visitors.
They are individually interesting, and you sure won't see me posting the opposite world view, but the tech-to-rant ratio has to remain above a certain level lest the whole place become an anti-Liberal (in the European sense) echo chamber, by driving the rest of the crowd away.
[don't reply that I don't submit much, the stuff I have time to read that's not regularly posted here (Ars, Reg) tends to not be in English]
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday November 07 2014, @10:02PM
" I would like to point out that the density of what we'll call "_gewg_ stories" is giving this place a certain slant which could turn off some visitors. "
First of all -- People who hang out here have no standing on which to bitch if they are not submitting stories of their own.
Second of all -- A posted story with which you disagree provides a good opportunity for you to attack it. You can be a dick like me and attack it with slurs if being modded down makes you laugh, or you can attack it with facts and reason and well-structured argumentation if you want to win big.
Third of all -- Gewg is a populist concerned about the overreach of authority, and I believe most here share those concerns. Where I don't agree with Gewg is his misguided libtard bullshit like giving amnesty to all illegals and letting them rape our pure White women while jailing all White men.
Soylent News is like settlers building a society, and you can't be a pussy when you're building a society. The villiage elders do a great job of being fair and impartial but you as a citizen of this society have to argue your case and solve your problems yourself, you cannot go running and whining to the elders everytime somebody calls you a poo-poo head or has beliefs different from yours.
If you want a circle-jerk you can go back to Slashdot an get modded up for sharks-with-lasers jokes and making fun of Windows users.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday November 07 2014, @11:47PM
> Soylent News is like settlers building a society
I obviously live in the village, so I care when I see that the main entrance is being crowded by giant billboards with one-sided off-putting commentary. I agree with almost every billboard, but there's a trend that sends a not-so-subliminal message to visitors as to who's welcome. The people moderately in disagreement will turn away, and only the most opinionated will contribute, dragging the discussion straight into the dirt.
I want the constructive people that I don't agree with to come in, so i may have an epic-but-instructive argument with them.
But _I_ don't get to choose who's talking about what, nor do I get to censor what I don't like or complain that someone bruised my feelings online. I'm only pointing out a worrisome perception.
I thank Gewg for his unmatched dedication to the regular submission of interesting articles, but I wish the editors would be a bit more careful with the accompanying statements... If we want to get new people to come in, we need to limit flamebait on the front page. That's what the comments are for, as you might know, dear Ethanol.
/offtopic
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 08 2014, @09:57AM
flamebait is a fuel that feeds the comment fire
without it, many articles would be smoldering graveyards