Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Not surprising. (Score 0) 725

Human activity has an affect on the environment, and has been having an effect on the environment for *at least* 10,000 years. That's not in dispute.

But how big an affect, in what direction at what time, and how that all works in context of the much larger and more powerful forces that also effect climate change? That's something that bears investigating.

Carbon is not a pollutant, it's a normal and necessary component of the atmosphere. The concentration varied widely over time long before humans evolved. There are several feedback mechanisms involved - both positive and negative.

An example of positive feedback - higher CO2 raises the temperature slightly which causes the oceans to release yet more Co2, raising the temperature further in a vicious cycle... but wait!

An example of negative feedback - higher CO2 increases plant growth. Plants harvest CO2 from the atmosphere and exhale O2 - reducing CO2 and thus bringing the temperature back down!

The biggest difference, on a scientific level, between the AGW crowd and their detractors seems to boil down to differing estimates of the net affect of all those feedback loops. The AGW folks insist it is positive, and thus that increasing the C02 concentration can be counted on to trigger runaway warming and catastrophe. The skeptics think it's a net negative, in which case any disturbances caused by CO2 emissions will correct themselves given a little time.

That's a factual dispute and one that should be relatively easy to settle, were politics not involved.

Comment Re:interesting times... (Score 0) 221

No, I'm forgetting none of this (although some is not exactly true,) despite so many replies from people that did not grasp the thread. This was the GP I was defending;

"This is simply not true. Margeret Murdock [wikipedia.org] won a silver medal at the 1976 Olympics (she lost the battle for gold under very controversial circumstances) and set four individual world records. In the eighties, most shooting sports became gender-segregated, the only exceptions being skeet and trap, which became gender-segregated right after a woman (Zhang Shan [wikipedia.org]) had won the gold medal in the skeet competition in 1992. There are other examples as well.

So, if today's women are no longer competitive with men, then that's certainly a consequence of gender segregation and not an argument for it."

To recap, in previous times, while women may have faced some discouragement from competing, they DID compete in open competition right along with the men, and in many cases performed very well. This did not sit right with some men and so we got segregated events where women have, if we believe another poster, not produced the same sorts of scores their predecessors did shooting against men.

I am not swearing that last part is true - I dont now - but accepting it for the sake of argument, the lesson would appear to be that humans perform better when they are allowed to compete at their level as determined by skill, not gender.

Comment Re:interesting times... (Score -1) 221

If we were talking about a sport where male physiology grants some sort of advantage, you might well have a point.

We are not. Male physiology is no advantage whatsoever in shooting sports. I know fewer women that shoot regularly than men, but the ones that do are not in any way inferior - in fact I would say the opposite based on my experience.

Given the facts, the most likely hypothesis is that yes, females do indeed do more poorly when segregated into a less-competitive ghetto than when allowed to compete on equal terms with their peers.

Comment Re:Political/Moral (Score 1) 305

"Free market traders calling each other up on the phone to ask a favor in changing the interest listing so they can make millions, is the essence of the free market."

NO, it's not.

How could this be any more obvious? In a free market you do not HAVE a central bank with the POWER to change the interest rate by fiat.

You have to have a central authority - the opposite of a free market - before what you are positing makes any sense.

"The market is all about inefficiencies and personal relationships and inflicting pain without any thought of the General Welfare."

You're right, the market is a homeostatic system, not a personification or pseudo-divinity, it cares about nothing.

What it *does,* when and to the extent it is allowed to operate freely, is to set prices in accord with supply and demand. This, in turn, is very important to the general welfare - with it, we have efficient allocation of resources towards meeting demand. It gives us a way to know otherwise unknowable but extremely important things, like how much wheat needs to be produced, and how much of that land should be in corn or cattle or windfarms or whatever else instead.

The market doesnt care about the general welfare, but the general welfare is certainly dependent on the market.

Comment Re:Myths are socially hilarious (Score 0) 198

"I dunno, polar bear hybrids in the Himalayas. That's pretty interesting."

Exactly! The most interesting part of the story and everyone else is ignoring it.

Polar bears in the Himalayas may be disappointing news to die-hard Sasquatch cultists but to me this sounds like an unexpected and very interesting clue that should be followed up on.

Comment Re:Myths are socially hilarious (Score 2) 198

While I wont dispute I have seen people that remind me of your description, I would caution against applying it too liberally. Just having e.g. an Atheist organization that functions something like a church does not necessarily imply anything religious. Churches themselves, often, have little if anything to do with religion. They are communitarian institutions, social institutions, and it makes sense that atheists would feel the same need for socializing as theists do.

Comment Re:Political/Moral (Score 0) 305

Sure the market cuts interest rates on its own, and raises them, in accordance with supply and demand. Since supply and demand balance, more savings spurs lower interest rates, which discourages savings, and vice versa. It's a self-correcting system, it wobbles all the time, but it never falls over.

You need some central authority with enormous power to unbalance one or both sides of the equation (for instance by setting interest rates) in order to make it really crash.

Libor was icing on that cake, a matter of manipulating a measurement used by the central bank in making its decisions - which is to say, it had nothing whatsoever to do with a free market in any way shape or form.

Comment Re:Political/Moral (Score 0) 305

Sure, any neat and tidy analysis of a real world problem will be missing some details.

But all the rest of it is really minor in comparison. Regardless of other details, the manipulation of the interest rate started a snowball with predictable consequences and made the crash inevitable. Tinkering with the other details might have made it worse or ameliorated it slightly, delayed or hastened the reckoning day, etc. but the logic from the initial condition is inexorable regardless.

Comment Re: Political/Moral (Score 2) 305

Boom and bust is a natural cycle, true enough. But not a huge problem by itself - booms are short and shallow, and so are the busts, and overall it's a rising tide lifting all boats, it's only a slightly jerky ride.

The problem comes when you have financial policies intensifying the boom, extending it, and pushing the bust part of the cycle down the road. By the time the bust happens, a small correction is no longer sufficient. The bubble has been nurtured and grown to monstrous dimensions, and the resulting damage intensified by orders of magnitude. A few profit from this each time, but at the cost of the general welfare.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...