Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: It's still reacting carbon and oxygen... (Score 3, Insightful) 142

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...

Comment: Re:Not news: GWAS Often Fail (Score 2) 68

by cryptolemur (#48081485) Attached to: Nearly 700 Genetic Factors Found To Influence Human Adult Height
Talk about name dropping...:-)

I hope you're not thinking all these authors contributed equally. They did not. I'd venture a (well educated) guess that most of them "merely" had part of the data, and provided that in exhange for a name in publication. Most probably made their undergrads to do the analysis, so they could only share the results for meta analysis, instead of the raw data. So the the undergrads got their names in, too.

Furthermore, all the authors are using the same method (GWAS) so it's only relevant to question that single method, not the smartness off all the authors put together. And it's apparent that even you don't think much of the method, since you require those that challenge it, to come up with the proof (actual genetic/biological/chemical mechanism) that the method provided a correct model of reality. And within a generous week, which, of course, is much less time that it took to churn this statistical model out of the data.

That doens't sound fair, me thinks. It'll take years of wet lab to find out if this model has any relevance to how the world ticks. Computers and undergrads are cheap, labs and professionsal are expensive, so we get a lot of statistical biology nowadays. It's not bad science per se, but it's a very limited approach, because it's (totally) data driven.

Comment: Re:Union tactics (Score 4, Insightful) 121

I may be protectionism, or it may be serious consern for quality. Or both. You do know that the luddites didn't oppose machines, but machines that produced poor quality stuff -- they were afraid that people would be fooled to buy third grade crap instead good quality products.

Too bad they were beaten, shot and hanged for it, and we have the world we have now...

Comment: Re:Not me (Score 5, Insightful) 255

If we started to assume that business is not supposed to behave the most sosiopathic and misantropist way possible, the world might become a better place.

In other words, the bottom line is no excuse for anything. Not even in business. A creepy bastard is a creepy bastard, even if it's for profit.

Comment: Re: Ethics and Morals ? (Score 1) 165

by cryptolemur (#47025653) Attached to: US Navy Wants Smart Robots With Morals, Ethics
The objective of war is to impose your will on the others, not to kill people, since you can't impose anything on dead people.

You only care about body count, or spectacular victories ("let's put the fear of God to them"), when you don't know what you're imposing if anything, or to whom you're imposing it on. Then body count becomes the only measure of prgress that you can use. It's like your fighting a war either because you can, or because you don't know what else to do...

Besides, what made Red Army relatively easy picking for the Wehrmacht in 1941-42 was the very fact that it won it's two previous engagements (Khalkyn-Gol and Winter war), the first one spectacularly, which pretty much prevented any constructive critique or learning from mistakes and casualties.

Comment: Re:Why do these people always have something to hi (Score 5, Informative) 348

by cryptolemur (#46791133) Attached to: VA Supreme Court: Michael Mann Needn't Turn Over All His Email
That was his point, don't you think?
Wasting 30 seconds searching would have given you, or or ... and many, many more.

Funny thing, the code, the data, the explanations, everything has been avalable for years, and yet so many of the public believe they're not. I wonder why that is?

It's like there was this massive political campaign against science. Of which you just became part of. Congratulations!

Comment: Re:Won't work (Score 2) 342

by cryptolemur (#46684139) Attached to: Australia May 'Pause' Trades To Tackle High-Frequency Trading
I gather the best way to 'encourage' investors to aim for long term profits, would be to simply make the tax be absurdly high (like 99.9999%) for HTC and then converge it to normal according to the time one has held a particular stock before sale. This way you can always make profit (if there's profit to be made), but even the gambler would be interested in the long term health of the general economy, and of the business in particular they have invested in.

Overnight, we'd have a stable, healthy, growing economy.

Thufir's a Harkonnen now.