Forgot your password?

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.

Comment: Re:@people from the US (Score 1) 145

by cryptolemur (#46610331) Attached to: GCHQ and NSA Targeted World Leaders, Private German Companies
I assume BND has been collaborating with US intellicenge a lot. Now, of course, it appears that anybody in Germany having collaborated with NSA (and it's brethen) or GHCQ should be considered a traitor and be put on trial.

Really, every European Intelligence Agency should be purged from persons who advocate international cooperation. And purged such a way that several genrations of intelligence people will think twice about "exchanging information".

Of course, what remains of international terrorism will have (again) grrreat time operating globally, but trust is something we can not afford anymore.

Comment: Re:The term of art is "obvious." (Score 1) 406

by cryptolemur (#46462205) Attached to: Apple Demands $40 Per Samsung Phone For 5 Software Patents
There could be that others listened to the customers, who at the time did not think all-touchy device was an improvement -- it still isn't! -- but good ol' Steve came forth and sold the abomination to people.

For most purposes touchscreen is an inferior input device compared to almost anything. It's like using your computer only with several mice and claiming it's great experience... now, making it the only input device, one hardly can call that an advancement.

Comment: Re:Replication (Score 2) 197

by cryptolemur (#45257673) Attached to: How To Better Verify Scientific Research
The *best* way would be to do a different experiment with the expectation of getting the same results if the original research was valid and understanding of the studied phenomena good. Then, regardless of whether the second study validates the first one or not, we would actually have more data and better understanding of the issue and problems regarding it's study.

Invalidating shoddy research would be a bonus.

Comment: Re:Depends on the energy source duh! (Score 0) 775

by cryptolemur (#44163035) Attached to: Electric Vehicles Might Not Benefit the Environment After All
The best estimates put nuclear way 'dirtier' than say, off shore wind. Sure, it's cleaner than coal or even natural gas, but that nuclear fuel don't mine itself, nor does it enrich itself, not does it transfer itself to the reactor, not does it take care of the decomissioning of that huge pile of contaminated concrete and steel...

Nuclear is in no way or form zero emission power source.

Other problem with nuclear is the enourmous power generating capacity of a reactor: it requires equally enormous backup for the inevidable times the reactor is offline! And since reactors are slow to come online, that backup needs to be something else, like natural gas. Or wind. Or solar.
Think about that, too.

Comment: Re:NIMBY (Score 1) 436

by cryptolemur (#44091229) Attached to: The Aging of Our Nuclear Power Plants Is Not So Graceful

Second, the French have a much greater faith in their scientists and engineers than we do here in the United States. The French scientists and engineers in turn work hard to earn and sustain that trust by doing good work. I cannot recall there ever being a serious nuclear accident in France for example. Finally, it seems that the French legal system doesn't allow for NIMBYs to get in the way of projects that are deemed to be in the national interest whereas anyone with money for the filing fees can cause no end of legal trouble here in the United States.

After the oil crisis French goverment went for the nuclear solution without any democratic or parliamentary process whatsoever. Which soon resulted in violent demonstrations etc. The energy production in France is complety controlled (owned and subsidized) by government.

Currently nuclear seem to thrive only in countries where tax payers pay the bill and have no say in the matter...

Comment: Re:Yeah, like that'll work (Score 1) 113

A better option would be to combine these with something like Aeroscraft cargo blimp to haul 60 tons od stuff in hours (20 -30) to disaster area and then do the delivery by drones.

The stuff could be preassembled kits of food rations, water purification, wide-spectrum antibiotics, perhaps a heater packaged in a light sheltering material with simple, drawn, cuilturally independent instructions in every item.

Comment: Re:I'm for it. (Score 1) 351

by cryptolemur (#43232557) Attached to: Defend the Open Web: Keep DRM Out of W3C Standards
I'd be much more inclined towards proper, standardized DRM, if the "rights" included my rights, too. The content provider could keep the right to create copies of the content, but I would have the ownership of that particular copy to do whatever I please to do with it. Enjoy, loan, sell, destroy...

Comment: Re:Read the literature... or not (Score 3, Informative) 140

by cryptolemur (#43196911) Attached to: How Scientists Know An Idea Is a Good One
Check out Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine: :-)

Anyway, I was taught early on this is one of the main reasons to attend conferences -- after seeing an interesting presentation (or even poster) about stuff close to yours, you go for a beer or two with the presenter and hear all the failures they suffered and the wrong turns they took on the way. And share your own, too.

The body of science is so much more than just the published papers, you know.

Comment: Re:Relevant amendments: (Score 1) 58

So they don't always have to tell you they're collecting personal info and once your name, phone number, profile picture and other identifying data is stripped, they can do whatever they want with your data?

Well no -- if it's for example medical or health care research, then you do have to get explicit, specific, informed concent that can be withdrawn at any time...
There has to be some limits in a civilized society, you know!

Comment: Re:fucking great? (Score 5, Informative) 160

by cryptolemur (#42908327) Attached to: Australian Federal Court Rules For Patent Over Breast Cancer Gene

1. The research wasn't completely privately conducted (universities, and other government-funded organisations were involved), so I think there is probably some reasonable expectation that the community will benefit as a result.

I believe there was practically no private research, since Myriad was founded after the gene was already located in chromosome 17 and it was only a matter of time for the teams in different universities to pinpoint the location and find out the sequence. Furthermore, the company was founded by some of the university researchers that took part (well, their labs took part, at least) in the search for the gene.
Myriad was funded to patent the gene, to put it plain and simple. And by holding a patent not just to their gene test, but any BRCA1 sequence test, they have prevented anybody else for figuring out *why* mutations in BRCA1 may cause breast cancer.

Comment: Re:Nuclear Power, now, and put it in my backyard (Score 1) 313

by cryptolemur (#42374017) Attached to: Coral Reefs In Grave Danger, Say Climate Simulations
You got a lot wrong in your comment, but let's consider only the thing concerning nuclear power generation:
- with all the mining, processing and delivering of fuel plus the ridiculous amounts of concrete required for safe reactor building the CO2e/W of nuclear is approaching that of coal. - nuclear power is generated by huge units, 100's MW, so when they go offline (and they do, eventually) you need a lot of backup power, and it can't be nuclear since it has to be available at moments notice. - there are limited places to build nuclear plants, since they require lots of cool, clean water to operate, and those are becoming rare with global warming I so hope that the luddites would stop pushing for old solutions and would embrace new technology.

Comment: Re:Only 8%? (Score 1) 655

by cryptolemur (#42232247) Attached to: Strong Climate Change Opinions Are Self-Reinforcing

It is the anthropogenic variety that is questioned. I have a VERY hard time believing that anywhere near enough evidence has been collected to determine that humans are responsible for the GW.

Which one you have difficulties with:
- CO2 is a "green house" gas, it traps heat - Humans are pumping it to the atmosphere 40 billion tonnes per year

The logical step from those two to the Antropogenic in AGW is so small and obvious that when Arrhenius figured out the first one and knew the second one 120 years ago, he could make it without any evidence or measurement.
In the realm of physics it's easy to figure things out way before you can get any evidence...

Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves. -- Lazarus Long