Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:no hope for political solution (Score 1) 93

by phantomfive (#48445311) Attached to: Prospects Rise For a 2015 UN Climate Deal, But Likely To Be Weak

I've never met anyone who can argue successfully against action on climate in an open debate.

Well, since you are being the judge of 'successful,' I'm not surprised you've never seen that. You are no different than most people in that you don't like to lose your own argument.

In the case of climate change, people and politicians are happy to help the environment. You will rarely see a politician who says he wants to hurt the environment.

It's only when you get down to specific propositions that people object. How much are you willing to help the environment? Are you willing to double the price of gas (to decrease demand)? Are you willing to significantly increase your electric bill? The answer to these for most people is no, they aren't.

But if it's just 'doing something', sure, I'm in favor of 'doing something,' as long as it doesn't negatively effect me.

Comment: Re:For those who found TFA to be TLDR (Score 1) 84

by phantomfive (#48444709) Attached to: How "Big Ideas" Are Actually Hurting International Development

Scientific replication and generalization requires multiple studies of competing hypotheses.

Or better, test your aid to make sure it's actually working. A technique could work in multiple studies of competing hypotheses and still not work later on.

But if you are spending millions of dollars without checking how well it's working, why not?

but you could turn it around the other way and say that fads involving big ideas are hurting science as well

I'm not sure that's relevant. Deworming kids isn't exactly a big idea.

Comment: no hope for political solution (Score 1) 93

by phantomfive (#48444681) Attached to: Prospects Rise For a 2015 UN Climate Deal, But Likely To Be Weak
The only way to reduce carbon emissions is to improve our technology to the point that non-emitting technologies are cheaper than emitting technologies. Electric cars, etc.

The reason politicians won't come to a meaningful agreement is because the population doesn't want it. Most people aren't willing to give up their car (or even double the price of gas) for the sake of global warming.

It would be easier to get everyone to agree to switch to nuclear energy than to agree to meaningful limits on CO2 emissions, and you should be familiar with how difficult of a political problem that is. People don't want to switch to nuclear because of.........actually I don't really know why, but even in countries that actually want to do something about CO2 (like Germany) are switching away from nuclear, so that tells you how hard the problem is.

Comment: Re:We will never have "real" AI (Score 1) 63

by phantomfive (#48441219) Attached to: Upgrading the Turing Test: Lovelace 2.0

We will never have "real" AI because every time we approach it, someone moves the bar as to what is required.

Artificial bars. The requirement is simple, have a computer that thinks like a human.

You don't even know what algorithm the human brain uses. They didn't in the 80s, either. Figure that out before you complain about bars being moved.

Comment: Re:next... (Score 1) 138

by phantomfive (#48440399) Attached to: Linux On a Motorola 68000 Solder-less Breadboard
Hardware from the 80s is a different kind of hardware. The designers had little to work with, and as a result came up with exciting and interesting designs. Working with their hardware is, in a way, working with them, understanding the puzzles they had and how they solved them.

Plus the smell is something you don't forget. Mmmmmmm.

What the world *really* needs is a good Automatic Bicycle Sharpener.

Working...