Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:power cars? technically no (Score 1) 90

by ShieldW0lf (#46775135) Attached to: 'Thermoelectrics' Could One Day Power Cars

Fuel. You've been bitching about the use of the word "power" when you're the one who's using it wrong. The word you want is fuel.

Thermoelectrics generate power in the presence of heat.
Internal combustion engines deliver power when shit explodes inside them.

Gasoline is a fuel, not a power source.

If you built a car engine that delivered power by causing fuel to explode, you'd change the world. Car engines work through deflagration, not detonation. Detonation releases way, way more power. It's hoped that it will be the replacement for scramjet engines... envision a jet being driven by a series of explosions. No one has admitted to successfully making one, though. I've spent years doodling different ideas about how you might make one if we had the materials necessary, but it's like building a space elevator... fun to think about, but you'd need materials far stronger than anything we have available.

Car engines run on boring old combustion. The difference in scale between combustion and detonation is not dissimilar to the difference between a compost heap and a bonfire.

Comment: Re:power cars? technically no (Score 1) 90

by ShieldW0lf (#46774921) Attached to: 'Thermoelectrics' Could One Day Power Cars

point granted, the "powered by" slope is a slippery one. but saying the car is powered by thermoelectrics is like saying it's powered by suspensions.

If it was pointed out to you that thermoelectrics operate anywhere there is a heat differential, and that you could technically "fuel" your car by pouring liquid nitrogen into the tank and have the thermoelectrics exploit the heat differential between the liquid nitrogen and the ambient temperature to generate work over time, aka power, would that be enough for you to concede that thermoelectrics are indeed what is generating the power?

Comment: Re:Another thing (Score 2) 135

No, I believe it will take another decade to reach the point of collapse.

Sixteen people can carry a coffin with such ease that half of them can sit around and chat while half of them take a shift.

Four people can carry a coffin, but they cannot do it in shifts, or forward motion stops.

Three people can carry a coffin, but they will suffer greatly for the effort. Those things are heavy.

Two people cannot carry a coffin. They do not have the strength necessary.

Like you say, it's only a 1.5 fold decrease from 3 to 2. But it's a 1.5 fold decrease that we cannot afford.

Maybe if we offer the coffin enough fiat currency, it will grow legs!

Comment: Re:Another thing (Score 4, Informative) 135

There is one huge mathematical flaw with this argument, people are still having children at a higher rate then replacement. Not that it is the only flaw, your understanding of history, economics, or even the current world is pretty warped.

Hate to break it to you, but you are stupid and intolerant, which is why people have been saying that to you. Not that you are going to listen.

That's true, but again, you're looking on too short a time scale and missing the pattern. We're having children at a rate that exceeds that necessary to replace members of the "Great" generation, that came before the boomers. They're still around, and the Boomers are beginning to retire.

From the study I posted above by Dr. Jost Lottes:

Worker-to-beneficiary ratio in the US:
  16 workers to 1 beneficiary in 1950
  3.3 workers per beneficiary in 2003
  2.1 workers per beneficiary in 2033 (projected)

You do understand that this is real, right? This is all based on hard data and real world facts; I'm not making this shit up as I go along.

Comment: Re:Another thing (Score 3, Informative) 135

You heard it first here, folks. ShieldPuppy says we're all gonna die, all is woe, repent Ye and face damnation. The man knows the future, he's even from the future and thought so much about it he came here on Slashdot to inform us all of our fate, which is not good. A cave-dwelling existence is our ultimate destination, there's no escaping his analysis, he alone among us knows.

Here, have some data to substantiate my claims.

Changes in Workforce: Demographics and the Future of Work and Retirement
Dr. Jost Lottes
Institute on Aging
Portland State University

Comment: Re:Another thing (Score 4, Insightful) 135

The Western world decided to shift from a growth system, where women bear and raise children and the able bodied population slowly increases, to a system where the women enter the work force and children are few in number. If you measure it in years, they did this quite a long time ago. If you measure it in generations, it's only been a couple.

This had the consequence of dramatically reducing the number of "dependents" and increasing the percentage of people doing "productive work" as an economist would measure it. But, that only lasts till the generation that started the ball rolling retire and become dependents themselves. Then the spiral to oblivion starts, and you can't reverse it without death and destruction.

The women in the work force are no longer "bonus productivity", now they're essential resources to care for the dependent elderly. You can't even acknowledge and the situation and correct it at this point, unless you want to leave your senior citizens to die of neglect. But the longer it continues, the worse it gets, until eventually the people are so few in number that economies of scale break down and we regress to the lifestyle of primitives.

You don't need to have a PhD in Mathematics to understand this. Just a willingness to accept that everything you've been raised to believe was wrong.

Everything is in decline. It's going to continue this way for the rest of our lives. People will continue to refuse to accept the truth of what I've just said, and they'll point at a million different symptoms and call them causes, and we will go into further and further into decline until it collapses. Only at that point will there be people ready to start over.

I had a brief period in my youth where I worked as a life insurance agent, and got to see the proprietary data that makes up their actuary tables of life and death. I saw all this coming, spent my whole life trying to oppose it because I care too much about people to just ignore it, but all I ever got was sophistry, anger and people telling me how intolerant and stupid I was. But everything I saw has come to pass, and this is just another part of it.

Sometimes being a visionary means begging your foolish fellows to stop dancing and get the fuck off the train tracks, and getting run down by the train because you don't have the heart to let go.

I pity the younger generation. At least I got to spend the first half of my life in the shiny happy part. You young guys are in for a rough life. You get to try to measure up to a time of abundance that you will never experience for yourselves, and fail. That it will make it all the more painful, I expect.

Comment: Re:Farming (Score 4, Interesting) 723

by ShieldW0lf (#46736863) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Are You Apocalypse-Useful?

I'm in the same boat. Not a whole lot of demand for IT professionals, but I can design and run a permaculture style farm, build a stone house, cast scrap aluminum into a metal working shop, build sterling engines and steam turbines, deliver the level of medical care you'd expect of a combat medic, manufacture rudimentary chemicals from raw materials for use in peace and in war, hunt with a bow and arrow, trap game, fish, track and fight hand to hand. Among other things.

And, I can use rhetoric to inspire men to follow my leadership and organize them effectively when they do.

I think I'd do quite well.

Comment: Re:Flaw? (Score -1, Troll) 152

by ShieldW0lf (#46722757) Attached to: Google Chrome Flaw Sets Your PC's Mic Live

I have been a staunch supporter of Firefox for many years.

However, I cannot continue to use their browser in good conscience.

I believe that it is of vital importance to humanity that we continue to subsidize and support the nuclear family.

I recognize that the purpose of marriage is to support nuclear families.

Marriage is not a contract between two people. Marriage is a contract that a man and a woman make with their community.

The man and woman agree that they will be loyal to each other and in exchange, society creates structures to support their union.

In this way, resources are dedicated to funding the future of the human race.

I have always been a supporter of the rights of the GLBT community to have sexual relations with whomever they wish, and to live without fear as they do so. I continue to support such rights.

I also have always been happy to support the multitude of tax breaks and other social benefits granted married couples, and shoulder a greater burden. I recognize that one day, I will wish to retire, and the children they raise will be the ones caring for me in my old age.

I discovered, in my experience as a financial adviser, that these tax breaks are often exploited by married couples who do not and never intend to have children, allowing them to live more decadent lifestyles.

I consider this to be a great crime against us all. Those resources have an important purpose. I expect a return from the money I invest in married couples, and that return is children.

I have believed for a long time that married couples who do not have children within a certain reasonable period of time should have their marriage annulled as a non-fruitful union, as was been done for hundreds of years of our history.

I believe that couples with children who get divorced before those children are adult members of society should be forced to repay society for breach of contract. Their children end up with significantly higher levels of social and psychological impairment, and drag society down.

I consider marriage of homosexuals to be tantamount to theft. They are stealing resources that were intended for young families, resources that are in part mine.

If you reject the position that marriage has a purpose and generates a return for society in exchange for services rendered, you must then acknowledge that marriage is prejudicial against single people.

It is not right that I should live in a two bedroom apartment with my male roommate, and shoulder a greater tax burden than a gay couple across the hall, simply because they have formalized their sexual union.

Marriage is not about love. People do not need to be married to be in love. This is about resource allocation.

And so, after the dramatic statement that Mozilla has made as an organisation in their treatment of Brendan Eich, I have decided that I will no longer use their browser or endorse it to others.

Also, I will no longer test the software I develop with their browser. In this way, I will contribute to making Firefox deliver a substandard user experience to those who do choose to support them.

When homosexuals get married, they cross the line from outsiders who do no harm to aggressors who must be defended against, and Mozilla are also on the other side of that line.

I consider this to be a reasonable position.

Comment: Re:bollocks (Score 1) 290

by ShieldW0lf (#46721035) Attached to: Nat Geo Writer: Science Is Running Out of "Great" Things To Discover

Save the banana
Better way to fight disease/ provide vaccinations
Cure cancer
Cure other uncurable diseases, there are hundreds or thousands
Much faster space travel
Food/water for all people of the world
More efficient ways to generate renewable energy

It took me 2 minutes to write this. I'm sure there's enough to keep humanity busy for at least another hundred years.

These are all problems that may be solved with technology, not science. Design, not discovery.

Comment: Re:Astronomy (exoplanets,etc ) and Cosmology say H (Score 1) 290

by ShieldW0lf (#46721017) Attached to: Nat Geo Writer: Science Is Running Out of "Great" Things To Discover

Considering that less than 20 years ago there were no known extrasolar planets, no one had ever even thought up of the Holographic universe theory, or debated the existence (and implications) of a firewall around blackholes, not to mention the so dark we still can't find it Dark Matter... I mean - we haven't even made enough discoveries to start making theories yet with Exoplanets (gaseous Super Earths are brand new in the past year, I believe), and cosmology has huge areas to explore and craft experiments around that are literally brand new.

I think we're going to be just fine in the theory and spectacular discovery department.

The fact that science is focused on such esoteric stuff that is so far removed from relevance to the human condition was a big part of his point.

These things are interesting, but it doesn't really matter too much if we discover them or not, in the grand scheme of things.

Like I've said before, people who think science is the right tool for every problem domain are not as smart as they think they are.

Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson