Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Chess (Score 1) 274

by rgmoore (#47697323) Attached to: Of the following, I'd rather play ...

Nobody knows for sure. There was a recent analysis that purported to show that the King's gambit is a loser for white, but even that wasn't a completely exhaustive analysis. Instead, the analysts decided to prune any line that resulted in a sufficiently lopsided position as presumptively winnable, which reduced the analysis to something tractable. But even that was for just one possible line of play, and one that was considered relatively easy to analyze. Nobody has come anywhere close to solving the whole game.

Comment: Re:Chess (Score 1) 274

by rgmoore (#47695715) Attached to: Of the following, I'd rather play ...

You must not have looked very far, then, because checkers- also on the list- has no random element, at least when played from the standard starting position. In some tournament variations, the starting position is chosen randomly from a few positions with the first few moves already made, but beyond that it has no random element.

In any case, it's not clear that inclusion of a random element is a bad thing. One of the drawbacks of chess is that the lack of a random element allows it to be analyzed in depth in advance. That places a huge emphasis on memorizing standard opening libraries, which seems counter to the point of individual strategic skill. In contrast, games with a random element can't be analyzed to the same depth in advance. That forces players to adjust their strategy on the fly rather than relying on somebody else's analysis.

Comment: Re:And when you include end-of-life costs? (Score 1) 409

All of which are difficult and expensive due to protests and alarmist by the anti-nuclear crowd.

Yeah, those crazy alarmists worried about what might happen with nuclear power. Everyone knows that nuclear power is perfectly safe, and people who suggest accidents might leave large regions uninhabitable for generations are a bunch of stupid hippies.

Comment: Re:Sure, but... (Score 1) 502

by rgmoore (#47610953) Attached to: Why Morgan Stanley Is Betting That Tesla Will Kill Your Power Company

I don't think the gigafactory is really what you need to solve the storage problems for practical off-the-grid solar. Electric vehicles are hauling their batteries with them wherever they go, so they need ones that are as light as possible for the energy capacity, even if that drives up the price. That's why Tesla is concentrating on expensive lithium technology. Off-the-grid storage couldn't care about weight, since the batteries are just sitting there. It mostly needs batteries that are as cheap and reliable as possible, which mostly means old-tech lead-acid.

Comment: Re:Out of the public domain? (Score 1) 96

by rgmoore (#47550541) Attached to: Google's Mapping Contest Draws Ire From Indian Government

If you can see it from public property and tell what it is, it's (effectively) in the public domain, isn't it?

It may be practically difficult to prevent that information from getting out to people who want it, but that doesn't make it legal to do so. Plenty of governments continue to try keeping stuff secret even when there's no real hope of doing so.

Comment: Re:Multiple service entrances are not allowed (Score 2) 124

There are other cases when you can have multiple service entrances beyond different voltages. A building may have more than one by special permission if it has multiple tenants and no common areas where a common service could be located, or if it's too big to be practically served by a single service. And a building can always be served by multiple services if the electrical demands are larger than the utility can provide with a single service. A quick look says that multiple services are always allowed if the demand exceeds 2000 amps at 600V, which could happen pretty easily in a building large enough to hold 5000 workers.

Comment: Re:n/t (Score 1) 278

by rgmoore (#47484067) Attached to: The debate over climate change is..

You add steps to your debate that aren't in debate. Everyone accepts that there is climate change, and everyone accepts that it is due to natural causes (e.g. ice ages).

This is both sophistry and demonstrably untrue. Some people deny that the Earth is more than 6000 years old, so they don't even believe in the ice ages. This isn't just a bunch of isolated cranks, either. Young Earth creationism is popular among Evangelical Christians, including ones who have been elected to important positions in the US government.

More importantly, saying that everyone accepts climate has occurred naturally in the past is a distraction rather than an answer to scientists who are saying that humans are changing the climate right now. There is massive amounts of evidence showing that the climate has changed significantly in the recent past, that there are no known natural factors that could have caused that size of climate change, and that there is an obvious, human-created environmental factor that can account for the observed climate change. Bringing up the ice ages is classic climate denialism.

Comment: Re:n/t (Score 3, Insightful) 278

by rgmoore (#47468785) Attached to: The debate over climate change is..

Some people are still screaming that it isn't happening.
Some have said OK, but humans aren't doing it!

And a lot of the people saying those things are the same people. They go through the same series of denials:

  1. The climate isn't changing.
  2. The climate is changing but it's natural.
  3. Humans are causing climate change, but it's no big deal
  4. It's a big deal, but the suggested changes to deal with it are acceptable.

The worst part is that they'll concede points through the list of denials in one argument, and then turn around and go back to the top the next time they argue the point. Going through the series of denying arguments and reverting after the end of every argument is the key sign you're dealing with somebody who isn't arguing the issue in good faith.

Comment: Re:Colour temperature vs CRI (Score 1) 278

by rgmoore (#47453427) Attached to: My most recent energy-saving bulbs last ...

I would think you'd want a high CRI non-incandescent for color critical work. Yes, incandescent lights have a theoretically perfect CRI, but their color temperature is so low that the light they put out is very blue deficient. Many people apparently like that light and praise it for its warmth, but it's so lacking in blue that it distorts color perception at least as badly as a low CRI would. I'd rather deal with the small imperfections in the light from a 90+ CRI fluorescent or LED with a color temperature of 4000K or 5000K than the lack of blue from a 100 CRI incandescent.

Comment: Re:LEDs (Score 1) 278

by rgmoore (#47453385) Attached to: My most recent energy-saving bulbs last ...

You could always shop specifically for fans that have the kind of socket you want. Despite what you say, there are actually plenty of ceiling fans out there that still use medium base bulbs. You can even buy a fan and the light set separately, so you can get exactly the lights you want. But don't let that get in the way of a rant.

Comment: Re:What is life? What is a virus? (Score 1) 158

by rgmoore (#47428611) Attached to: Hints of Life's Start Found In a Giant Virus

Everything is a continuum.

That is an exaggeration. Things grow as a continuum, but they can get separated when the parts in the middle die off. You wind up with a branched structure because things really can get far enough separated that when the middle dies off they can't reconnect. For example, mammals really are distinct from other tetrapods because the forms that connected them died off and they've been developing in different directions ever since.

He: Let's end it all, bequeathin' our brains to science. She: What?!? Science got enough trouble with their OWN brains. -- Walt Kelly