Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Deniers (Score 4, Interesting) 525

Since all the institutes puslishing their version of the temperature records have published the very specifics of why, how and where they have "manipulated" the records, you could start with those. If you choose instead to follow a newspaper columnist who has been caught making stuff up time oafter time, you're free to do so. Just don't pretend that you try to be objective. After all, the "alleged adjustments" are well understood and written out clearly, from the very beginning of the publishing of the temperature data. There's nothing nefarious going on, quite the contrary. In the offert of making the temperature data consinstent and comparable, that is. Mr. Booker's continous efforts to smear science and scientists, on the other hand, seem at least to me be something else than honest.

Comment: Re: Umm... Lulz.... (Score 1) 253

There are two problems with making Greece and example: they did not spend irresponsibly, they became insolvent only after Germany forced them to shrink their economy, and secondly, because once out of Euro Greece can pay back their loans with newly printed bitdrakhmas, and Germany will take the biggest hit of that being the biggest creditor.
Ok, three problems, since even the term "punishment" makes it also obvious that EU is not a cooperative looking for the common good of it's citizens, but tool for the German financial elite to have their way regardless of things like democracy.

Comment: Re:18B on 75B (Score 1) 534

by cryptolemur (#48922063) Attached to: Apple Posts $18B Quarterly Profit, the Highest By Any Company, Ever

There's nothing more moral or good business about razor thin margins.

Nope, but they mean that the "free markets" work... anything other than razor thin margins signal that there's a disturbance in the market -- either actors don't have all the information they need, or something is preventing competition -- that allows for profit to emrge. Which is one way to say that good business is all about preventing the free markets from working!

Comment: Re:Answer: (Score 2) 512

by cryptolemur (#48767891) Attached to: Publications Divided On Self-Censorship After Terrorist Attack
Apparently it wasn't that effective, since nobody has been able to verify this "myth". The young moros may have committed in less juramentados merely due to improved conditions and infrastructure, and seeing US troops as less of an enemy.
Anyway, they were still doing it in 1940, they were doing it to japanese, the last incident was in 2011, so the habit still exists...
And apparently pighides or pork having nothing to do with getting to heaven is an absurd idea. To a Muslim, that is.

Comment: Re:If the manufacturer added more value... (Score 1) 201

by cryptolemur (#48631825) Attached to: Investigation: Apple Failing To Protect Chinese Factory Workers
Yes, that's the naive version of how "free market" works. In reality, since competition is not for the benefit of the companies, they do whatever it takes to not compete. Because in fully functional "free markets", it would be practically impossible to make profit, which means that the very driving force of the innovation and manufacture will diminish the better "free markets" work. The "free markets" will fail by design, by becoming unfree and uncompetitive.

And competition is not, by definition, efficient. It's immense waste of time, effort and resources. What it produces, on the other hand, might sometimes appear to be efficiency, if look only at the winner. If you look at the whole picture, it would take some mind bending acrobatics to believe that having to write the same software for three different operating systems and three different phone platform is in any way efficient use of developers' skills, time and effort.

Comment: Re:Peer reviewed (Score 1) 329

by cryptolemur (#48563125) Attached to: Warmer Pacific Ocean Could Release Millions of Tons of Methane

Many times, these denier sites all quote one study, and in the cacophony confusion arises.

I would like to add that often these sites quote a study that does not say what the site claims it says, usuallly the contrary. So always check out the study, too. If you don't know the lingo, or can follow the science, there's usually some discussion to be found handling the misquoting of the paper.

As there very seldom is "conclusive" studies in anything -- and especially so in a cross-discipline field covering physics, astronomy and biology -- you'd be better off starting with Spencer Wearth's Discovery of Global Warming, me thinks.

Comment: Re:AND, notT OR (Score 3, Insightful) 235

by cryptolemur (#48477803) Attached to: Renewables Are Now Scotland's Biggest Energy Source
The life-cycle carbon footprint of different energy production is very extensively studied, and if eco-freaks don't cre about those, nuclear-freaks tend to come up with very fantastic numbers, manaking to make nuclear almost as clean as renewables by creative and fantastic accounting. For example, there's often some unknown technical magic happening when moving from high-grade uranium to low-grade uranium that requires no extra enrichment. Or by stroke of other kind of magic, we turn all uranium reactor to thorium or other unproved stuff reactors overnight. The biggest issue, though, the nuclear is facing in this new landscape of energy production is the fact that it's rather incompatible with the renewables in the grid. Unless it scales itself down succesfully.

Comment: Re: It's still reacting carbon and oxygen... (Score 3, Insightful) 143

by cryptolemur (#48432635) Attached to: Coal Plants Get New Lease On Life With Natural Gas
The problem with nuclear, without even going close to the radiation boogeyman, is that:
- it requres huge investement before nothing happens
- it takes years to construct a power plant
- it's pretty much unflexible regarding any peaks or lows in consumption
- the latest generation concrete housings' carbon foorprint takes a decade to offset
- provided the fuel mining, enrichement and transportation is almost carbon neutral
- the nuclear plants require a lot of sweet water for cooling, 24/7, and the world is running out

Oh, and nobody is willing to foot the bill, including insurance and decomissioning, so techically greenies don't really need to freak the hell out or start screaming, because mostly nuclear power is off the table due to practical issues. Which probably is why I don't know any greenies who do run around in circles. Actually, most of the greenies I know are free-market liberals. Now, *that* doesn't make any sense...

Comment: Re:It is all about baseload (Score 1) 488

by cryptolemur (#48366935) Attached to: Denmark Faces a Tricky Transition To 100 Percent Renewable Energy
That could be because in the real world nuclear is pretty much incompatible with renewables, being so darn inflexible in every possible way. And that is the gist of all this "baseload" power generation -- it's old thinking stemming from the fact that neither (old) coal or nuclear power plants can adjust well to the demand, so you have to run them at 80-90 percent of capacity all the time, and add some way more adjustable gas generators in to the mix to take care of the peaks.

The more the almost immediately adjustable renewables take care of the power production, the less the is room for old technology in the grid, since the whoe baseload issue goes away. And this is starting to hit the luddite utilities in the Europe who refuse to take advantage of new technology...

Comment: Re:There is some place for secrecy (Score 1) 219

by cryptolemur (#48293411) Attached to: Is Public Debate of Trade Agreements Against the Public Interest?
Most of the nogotiations are, or should not be, a game, where you try to achieve advantage over the other "partners", but try an agreement that benefits boths sides, or all, sides of the agreement.
Beides, while at least telling your subjects what you are negotiating about, would not necessarily require revealinh all your cards, au contraire, public discourse may give you other leverage, or even more opportunities for bargaining.
I don't think there's downside in open trade negotaitions. Not open trade. Or, you know, open, free markets. There are many downsides to secretive, backhanding, misinforming, lying, deceiving martkets, though.

Comment: Re:Consistency (Score 1) 366

by cryptolemur (#48159027) Attached to: Scanning Embryos For Super-Intelligent Kids Is On the Horizon
Ahum, Stephen Hsu is a theoretical physicist, the breed that seems to think that everything else in science is a subset of their discipline and thus within their realm of understanding. Which is rarely the case.

Meanwhile, the genetic researchers have already started serious discussions about the fact that since we now can fix some defects already on the embryo level, should we? If you cull them, then that discussion will be controlled by hapless physicists...

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db