Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Great. Low-quality evolutionary "solutions" (Score 1) 84

What's more, there are some apparently void elements in the circuit, but still the circuit stops working when these elements are removed.

Sounds like the textbook definition of the GP's, "[...] this bio-inspired stuff cannot easily be improved incrementally from seeing how it performs in practice.". I think that being able to improve things in that way is important, too, since these kinds of evolutionary processes are like rolling a ball down a hill to find the lowest point; it's good at finding the local minimum, but you don't know if you've found the best solution globally.

Comment Re:Not gonna happen (Score 1) 185

So are you saying you don't understand that drugs cost huge amounts of money to research, develop, test, and approve?

You should go to Wiki and look up the Fallacy of Sunk Costs.

You should go to the Wiki and look up "Why the fuck would they bother investing money in all that to begin with if they plan to exsanguinate themselves by operating at a loss from the start". The sunk cost fallacy means "Don't throw good money after bad", not "Throw your money in the garbage plan because you'll never make anything out of it anyway".

Comment Re:Seems like a resource, not a threat (Score 3, Insightful) 416

From what I understand methane is a more efficient greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so if one believes that the methane is going to enter the atmosphere anyway then it would make sense to convert as much of it it to carbon dioxide first, with the obvious benefit of energy extraction.

Slashdot Top Deals

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas