Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here? (Score 1) 86 86

Governments have done a lot of things over the years, but that is not what we are talking about. You made a specific claim about me:

You realize you are trying to discuss rationally the administrative problems of a policy with people who have no trouble with the idea of setting up an Orwellian police state to enforce those policies, and with no real concern about the ostensible goal.

I have not argued for or against an Orwellian state. You made that up. And you pretended that you were being rational while you did it. You were not making an argument, you were simply being abusive.

Comment Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here? (Score 1) 86 86

This chemical makes the feed more effective, and more of the nutrients gets digested by the cows. Why would farmers not want a more effective feed? How is that naive?

All the complaints here are predicated on the idea that this will cost a lot of money and that farmers will not be willing to pay for it so the it will have to be mandated by a government decree. Nobody has provided any evidence of these claims.

The scientists say that more studies need to be done on this subject, and that they still don't have all the answers. I don't claim to have all the answers. But the people who are against the idea seem to have all the answers; enough to judge this idea as unworkable and call anyone who wants them to justify their claims as naive, irrational, thoughtless and have no business commenting.

Comment Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here? (Score 1) 86 86

But like the OP says, if you think about what it would take to implement this, which you clearly didn't, you would have realized that likely a much lower outcome even with great expense.

Since you have obviously put the thought into this topic, exactly how much is it going to cost to implement this? How does it compare to the costs to get the same savings from other sources? You say that the smart approach is what makes sense, but why is this not the smart approach?

If the conclusion of this study was that some feed energy not lost as methane was used by the cows to retain body weight that would have otherwise been lost in early lactation, isn't this a win/win solution for the farmers? They can combat climate change and make their feed more effective. How is that not a smart approach?

Comment Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here? (Score 1) 86 86

Oh look, it's another person making wild allegations without a shred of evidence. Nobody but you mentioned governments forcing farmers to do anything. Only you seem to think that adding 3-nitrooxypropanol to the feed is for any reason other than to reduce the greenhouse gases from cows. You have simply made up a claim to belittle someone who has a different opinion to you. It is exactly the sort of thing that cascadingstylesheet was complaining about.

Is that really what you consider to be a rational discussion?

Comment Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here? (Score 1) 86 86

What, you mean behaving reasonably might work better than just demonizing political opponents? You may be on to something there.

Judging by the way that the OP responded to my post, I think that we still have a long way to go before the demonising is done. Not only did he or she demonise the farmers by saying that they wouldn't voluntarily do anything to help in reducing greenhouse gases, but also I managed to get a serve because I didn't magically know that this was the vague "problems of implementing" the addition of a chemical into the cows' feed.

But seriously, I think that there is plenty of work going on behind the scenes to find solutions to climate change (like this story for example). Unfortunately, these sorts of studies tend to go unreported while the public endlessly debates what Al Gore said in a film back in 2006 or what happens to solar power plants after the sun goes down.

Comment Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here? (Score 1) 86 86

And yet making unsubstantial allegations and spreading FUD is exactly what we need around here. If you can't make a statement without explaining yourself then you have even less business commenting here than I have.

Believe it or not, farmers are concerned with climate change because it directly affects them. Here in Australia, our farmers often cooperate with the CSIRO (and other institutions) to study various aspects of climate change and methods to combat it. Also, any government that wants to make a cheap demonstration that they are doing something to meet their greenhouse gas emission targets could easily subsidise the addition of a single chemical into the feed of cows and other animals.

Comment Re:So 30% of 4% is 1.2%. What is attractive here? (Score 2, Insightful) 86 86

Because all the 1.2% savings that can be made add up to make a large difference. If we find eight ways to make 1.2% savings across different areas then that is nearly a 10% reduction in the human generation of greenhouse gases. The human race isn't limited to finding just one method to solve the climate change problem. If we make small savings across the board with cost-effective, manageable solutions then we don't have to solve the problem with a single grand gesture that ends up costing a lot of money.

And what are the problems that you envisage implementing this? The article says:

Larger tests will be needed to see if detrimental effects crop up over the long term

I find it interesting that you have already found out what the problems are before scientists have managed to do any studies.

Comment Re: Sure you can. (Score 1) 316 316

Imagine my surprise when one started stating the license expired, and it was not able to run any setup.exe's to fix it (obviously some sort of infection).

Naturally Windows systems are full of malware and viruses if you simply assume that any problem that occurs is "obviously some sort of infection". If something goes wrong with a Linux setup, I'm sure you would assume that it couldn't possibly be due to "some sort of infection" and would actually take the time to find out what had happened.

When you finally found the problem you could then rest assured that your belief in the superior OS was justified, and the circular logic would finally be complete.

Comment Re:RTFA? (Score 1) 316 316

Google gives me free search, free e-mail, free calendar, free maps, etc. etc. in return for tracking what I do and selling that information to marketers....

I'm ok with this deal, it was made willingly.

You're paying with long-term data for short-term service. Google will one day shut down GMail yet they will still have all of your data to do with as they please. I doubt you considered that when you committed to it and now you cannot undo it.

I will, however, retract at least part of my statement if you tell me that you didn't start using Google services until after the Snowden revelations.

Comment Re:wft ever dude! (Score 1) 153 153

Right!

Because in 1981 or so, everybody was pretty sure that this fairly obscure educational network would *never* need more than about 4 billion addresses... and they were *obviously right*.

The discussion about grains of sand or atoms is pretty silly. The reality is that the idea of 1 item, 1 address is already hogwash. It's very typical for one address to host *many somethings* (EG: websites, NAT, etc) and the opposite is also equally true: it's very typical for one something to respond to many addresses.

There are many applications that we likely can't even consider due to today's limitations that may well depend on or benefit from a large address space. IPv6 is a definite step in the right direction, but having seen the transition from 8 -> 16 bit computers, 16 -> 32 bit computers, and the transition from 32 -> 64 bit computers, the reality is that **growth is exponential**.

When 2% of your address space is consumed, you are just over 6 doublings away consumption. Even if you assume an entire decade per doubling, that's less than an average lifetime before you're doing it all over again.

IMHO: what needs to happen next is to have a 16 bit packet header to indicate the size of the address in use. This makes the address space not only dynamic, but MASSIVE without requiring all hardware on the face of the Earth to be updated any time the address space runs out.

Comment Not as high as reward (Score 1) 117 117

And lots of high rent to suck it up

The extra among you can earn there more than makes up for the increased rent - I don't live there myself, but I have lots of friends that do.

Fuck you.

You don't have to live there you know, I don't. It is possible to work in the tech industry elsewhere, and if that's the kind of reactions you have to postings on an internet board you may want to strongly consider it.

% APL is a natural extension of assembler language programming; ...and is best for educational purposes. -- A. Perlis

Working...