Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Survival (Score 2) 488

by walshy007 (#48024519) Attached to: Energy Utilities Trying To Stifle Growth of Solar Power

Lithium batteries have short lifespans unless you're only using a fraction of their capacity, high environmental toxicity, and are extremely expensive.

In regards to lifespan to cycling, you are thinking of lead acid batteries, lithium batteries can be deep cycled all the time. When your phone gets to a few percent battery life, it is being deep cycled pretty heavily.

There does need to be some kind of undervoltage protection, because if drained under 3v batteries can be damaged, however by that point well over 99% of all the energy the battery has has been expended. I'd hardly call that "light cycling".

Modern quality lithiums can be deep cycled somewhere between 500-1000 times depending. A 2-3 year life full cycling once a day isn't too shabby at all.

Comment: Re:Why "SJW"? (Score 1) 1134

by walshy007 (#47833923) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture

In regards to the usage of the label social justice warrior

It is used as a short hand for people who have a particular culture, generally very well meaning, nice people, who fail to see how their solutions to perceived "problems" may themselves cause differing problems for people, and that other peoples heirarchy of priorities may not necessarily be in a similar order to their own.

Common but not necessary beliefs/traits of SJWS can include. Blaming the 'patriarchy' for all of the worlds ills. Belief in 'rape culture'. The redefining of words in such a way that the same behaviour turned in the other direction does not qualify "only white people can be racist because only they have systemic power" etc.

Individual social justice warriors may believe whatever they like, there are only trends and common themes, common themes and tactics that lead to a common label.

it's that the name you (collectively) chose sounds like it came out of a paranoid conspiracy.

The name fits the behaviour commonly seen. They are for what they perceive to be social justice. They go about it in a way that is potentially/often very hostile to others interests, and are quite devout in their beliefs. They fight for what they believe in, thus the "warriors".

Comment: Re:Nobody has the right not to be offended. (Score 1) 1134

by walshy007 (#47833557) Attached to: Combating Recent, Ugly Incidents of Misogyny In Gamer Culture

bigotry ËbÉgÉ(TM)tri/ noun intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself

If you are intolerant of his differing views, you fit the bill if a bigot.

This is okay, there are plenty of views out there that people don't tolerate. I sure as hell wouldn't tolerate someone who believes it is perfectly alright to come up and punch me in the face unprovoked and acts on that belief.

The lesson to be learnt here, is that it is probably silly to be tolerant of absolutely everything and that calling someone a bigot in the process of being intolerant of someone else's differing views is a silly thing to do. The social justice crowd just needs to drop it, as a step of winding back the hypocrisy.

Comment: Re:why the focus on gender balance? (Score 1) 579

by walshy007 (#47783215) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

Even if you find a cause, or several causes for the imbalance that does not necessarily mean that they are problems.

Its changing the situation to favour the preferences of a group, depending on the situation being changed and what measures are to be taken some people may consider it worth it, but others may not.

Comment: Re:why the focus on gender balance? (Score 5, Insightful) 579

by walshy007 (#47782061) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

the intelligent person wonders why

I have no problem with this, it's always helpful to try to figure out how something came to be.

and tries to correct the problem.

This can be problematic. We can try to figure out what influences the male muscovy duck to hold the female down and force copulation for example, but why is it a "problem"? and why should it be "fixed"?

Since when is people choosing what they want a "problem" that deserves "fixing" with indue influence?

Science is a tool used to try to figure out how things are, it doesn't judge them as morally good or bad.

Comment: why the focus on gender balance? (Score 5, Insightful) 579

by walshy007 (#47781733) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

Wikimedia Foundation efforts to address this "gender gap" have so far remained fruitless.

Why must everything be gender balanced? Why not let women do what they want instead of trying to force them in to places that aren't necessarily their thing?

If women are actors instead of objects, they can make their own damn choices and do what they want to do without requiring others to try to sweeten the deal specifically for them to try to entice them.

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 465

by walshy007 (#47735227) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

I see people claiming that something is without a doubt 100% certain and truth. Which is why I linked that speech.

there are plenty of scientists out there who know the limitations of what they know, and there are a few who are more certain than they should be. When measures are proposed from theories where the measures are likely to destroy some people's livelihoods,the amount of certainty people want can differ. Those who aren't likely to be adversely affected by the measures are the most likely to want to push forward. Those that will be adversely affected, want to be truly sure it is worth it.

wanting to protect the environment from people can be a nice goal, but people need resources. It doesn't matter if we become 30% more energy efficient across the board when the population doubles.

Comment: Re:Every week there's a new explanation of the hia (Score 1) 465

by walshy007 (#47729347) Attached to: Cause of Global Warming 'Hiatus' Found Deep In the Atlantic

There are lots of things we know with certainty.

i think richard feynman put it best.

The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.

Comment: Re:non sequitur? (Score 1) 143

by walshy007 (#47720549) Attached to: How Argonne National Lab Will Make Electric Cars Cheaper
Most lead acid batteries don't like being discharged really quickly, ones designed for cold cranking amps tend to not like being too deeply run down either. Right now for sixty dollars I can purchase an 11.1v lithium polymer battery that can output well over 250 amps co tinuously and 500 amps in bursts that's on a four amp hour battery. Up the capacity and the maximum current can get crazy

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 748

by walshy007 (#47719757) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Were the dissenting opinions from within the organisation though? I remember a piece written by one of the gay employees that said while the revelation of his donation was disappointing that he had always been reasonable and treated them no differently than anyone else.

from a bystanders point of view, it looked like just a lot of hate directed towards him, with no end in sight until there was some form of admission that he was an evil evil person.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 748

by walshy007 (#47703909) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Considering I don't see gay marriage activists advocating polygamy be accepted yeah, they aren't for equal rights. The only sensible thing that would treat everyone equally in regards to marriage would be to eliminate it as a government thing whatsoever.

treating people equally can be a silly goal though at times, I would not treat the prime minister of great Britain. The same as I would treat a six year old on a special needs bus. Like it or not people are different and sometimes those differences can matter to their suitability to a task or problem.

what people would probably agree more to is not using criteria irrelevant to a task, but that then devolves into what are the criteria and why is it important.

anyway the point I was trying to get across is equality as a blind goal is not necessarily a good thing.

Comment: Re:correlation, causation (Score 1) 387

by walshy007 (#47600493) Attached to: Ancient Skulls Show Civilization Rose As Testosterone Fell

The scary thing is you think that women have been powerless victims for millennia completely unable to have any effect on society or men until an eyeblink ago.

You must think women are pretty inferior to men to maintain that belief.. because how else would that situation have been maintained?

When it comes to people sense of agency, agents are capable of making decisions that affect the outcome of things, and things simply happen to objects.

To say that women are unable to have control over their situation (as you do when you paint them the victim) is to objectify them.

It is often in this way that feminists are the biggest objectifiers of women that I know.

Heuristics are bug ridden by definition. If they didn't have bugs, then they'd be algorithms.

Working...