Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:So, they will become coal-free? (Score 1) 332

by Yaotzin (#48277595) Attached to: Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years

Well... Last time I was in Brisbane, during December, I noticed how every store, mall and food court in the shopping area had AC on AND the outer doors wide open.

Let's clap it: That. Is. Stupid!

I was told that it was considered a bad custom to shut the outer doors - it might scare customers away when a door is closed.

I agree that it is a pretty stupid practice, but from a geocultural point of view it is understandable. I live in Sweden where it is too cold to keep the doors open 8 months of the year. Restaurants and grocery stores generally have their open hours printed on the doors in large text, and most other stores are generally open from 10-19. One way to go could be a commerce agreement to keep doors closed. If every store starts doing it at the same time, they won't have to worry about losing customers and they will save money on electricity. I realise such things are easier said than done, though.

Comment: Re:Of course we can (Score 2) 140

by Yaotzin (#47901399) Attached to: If We Can't Kill Cancer, Can We Control It?

Think about it: If a company finds a cure for all cancers (emphasis on the plural form, cancer is not just one disease) they could demand any price at all and people would pay it. "Let's discuss payment plans." The inventors would receive hero status and could retire rich as kings of old. You don't think this would sound appealing to the people allegedly sitting on this cure-all?

Comment: Re:Correlation Does Not Imply Causation (Score 2) 281

by Yaotzin (#47755309) Attached to: The Evolution of Diet

She doesn't even have to exercise, just eat less. A 30 minute walk every day is enough and most people can manage that, even if they're overweight. My mother lost a lot of weight without a gym card or going jogging, just by reducing her calorie intake. [/personal anecdote] Some people swear by LCHF and such and maybe that works, but the safest bet IMHO is simply to do a food study (write down everything you eat for a month) and then cut down. Nonetheless, it requires a serious conviction and if a medical professional can't convince her, then who will?

Comment: Re:No, school should not be year-round. (Score 1) 421

by Yaotzin (#47641993) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: Should Schooling Be Year-Round?

What they should do is FIRST give students a 10-hour schoolday, just like office workers have;
so instead of getting out at 2pm, students start at 7am and school lets out at 5pm, with a 1hour break/lunch.

That's a bad idea. A 10-hour school day would guarantee that at least two of those hours are wasted. The only upside would be that you wouldn't have to care what your kids are doing while you're at work. School days shouldn't be longer than 8 hours, and homework shouldn't take more than an hour to complete.

Comment: Re:Duh (Score 1) 818

by Yaotzin (#46764871) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

Still, as a Swede talking, I don't feel like I live in a true democracy. We only have public votes once every 10 years or so, and the results of those are often discarded. I'm aching for a more direct democracy where the government only has the executive mandate. I don't know if the country would be run better, but at least we'd get a say.

Comment: Re:Go after em Nate (Score 1) 335

by Yaotzin (#46541995) Attached to: Nate Silver's New Site Stirs Climate Controversy

Yes, well nutrition is a very good example of perfect confusion actually. The media, or the tabloids in any case are wont to blow up the significance of every "new discovery" immensely. New super diets and what not, this and that will kill you etc. It's usually a product of narrow-minded studies but the media doesn't care about the methods. On the other hand, the public health departments come off as more or less inert, which doesn't help either.

Comment: Re:Why'd he sign the agreement? (Score 1) 387

by Yaotzin (#46387613) Attached to: Girl's Facebook Post Costs Her Dad $80,000

Absolutely, that's a fair point. I see I was a bit frivolous with my usage of 'obviously', but I've the notion that a settlement is to save time and money instead of just going through the motions in court. This is generally a good thing. This whole NDA changes everything though, it's a low blow. While I now realise the economical reasons for accepting such an offer, the moral implications are dubious. Paying him off communicates to me that Gulliver was in the wrong and that they're (sort of) sorry. Putting a gag on the man mucks it up completely, saying rather that they realised that they did wrong but that they're NOT sorry. In the end he lost his money since the agreement was voided, all fair, but the agreement should never have included a non-disclosure clause. Gulliver, if they were honest, should never have put it on the table and the man should never have agreed to it. The lawsuit shouldn't have been about the money, but about fair compensation. IMHO, being told to take the money and shut up is not fair compensation. So in accepting, he acknowledged it was about the money and Gulliver, by proposing, acknowledged they didn't care about fair compensation. Now both sides look like shit and so, nothing was accomplished. Just my $.02.

Comment: Why'd he sign the agreement? (Score 1) 387

by Yaotzin (#46382501) Attached to: Girl's Facebook Post Costs Her Dad $80,000

Gulliver obviously settled because they weren't sure about their chances to win the lawsuit, so why should he accept their terms of non-disclosure and not just see it through? It feels like he gave away a winning hand. If someone's done you wrong you'd want to tell people about it. IANAL so maybe I'm missing something.

If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. -- Norm Schryer