Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:CAFE Standards (Score 1) 236

Quite possibly it is not fuel efficiency directly that increases the resale price - but the fact that it is a good indication of how well the vehicle has been maintained. Especially of the hard to inspect part - insides of the engine, transmission and differentials.

Of course, I agree it is also that, the target market for used cars is more sensitive to fuel costs, and hence picks cars with higher fuel efficiency.

Comment Re:CAFE Standards (Score 1) 236

But does increased fuel efficiency have its role to play in incomes rising? Could be. At least the wikipedia article on Jevon's Paradox mentions this as one of the factors. Tough to say for sure.

So while one cannot prove it is the same phenomenon, it is enormously difficult to refute either. You want to have a go?

Comment Re:I don't see the problem (Score 1) 251

I don't understand. Keep discovering neat projects. Let friends and possibly family too keep discovering neat projects. Associate with them you did before facebook was created. Why do you want to bug friends and family on kickstarter too?

People who want to bug each other (and get bugged) by "friends" and "family" all around the internet, use facebook. People who don't want to, don't use facebook. Why would they?

Comment Re:But.. (Score 1) 340

Ok, so it is "not capitalism" if rivers are used the way they are everywhere in the world. It is coercion, as is my breathing without taking permission from you.

How do you think rivers should be used (or should they at all be used) under "capitalism"?

You have skirted such questions multiple times in this and related threads. If you have no answers about practical ways to use resources in the real world kindly let adults discuss the real world.

Comment Re:And Fire qualifies for many definitions of Life (Score 1) 401

And by my "word", you must be referring to _YOUR_ introduction of Theology as a topic right?

Limits of bullshit. Show me my using the word "Theology" before you in this thread.

You don't like that "life" is undefined

You yourself posted a "definition" of life from a dictionary. My liking or not doesn't matter, but life is surely "defined", according to some definitions of "defined". It is not scientifically defined, which I have been trying to impress upon you, but your skull seems impermeable.

If you can't amaze us all with a perfect definition of life why would you sit and complain about the definitions given?

No, I am just amused at your level of confusion. You just said life is undefined. Now you claim to discuss other definitions given. All unscientific, arbitrary. None amenable to logical analysis. But do proceed, it is fun to watch.

Also, to point out your bullshit, I never claimed to have a "perfect definition of life". Accepting fire as life does go towards it, but then it contradicts unscientific usage history of the word.

Comment Re:And Fire qualifies for many definitions of Life (Score 1) 401

In fact I never even hinted at theology

I ... suggested that you were confusing Theology

You used that word where it wasn't relevant or warranted on my suggestion that you are using "etc." to be able to change goalposts later. Sure enough, your "etc." came in handy as you have to change the properties if a thing your teacher told you is not "life" but it has all the properties you mention. And all the while, Theology was completely irrelevant in any sense of the word.

How then can "fire" have global properties

I never said "fire" has global properties. I was aware from the beginning that your "etc." is meant to hide your ignorance, and you were going to change goalposts later. And sure enough, you post later about "no global properties" so that you can pick and choose.

The definition in the dictionary is rather ambiguous

Which is what I have been saying - it is not a word deserving of scientific analysis. It has been used for "life as we know (knew) it". It doesn't stand up to intellectual scrutiny a 7th grader can subject it to. But if you insist on an ignorant "scientific" analysis on a decidedly unscientific word, it would definitely appear to be rambling to all smart people. Your taking offence at this being pointed out won't help much.

If you notice, the dictionary definition is already disagrees with established science. Protists and fungi are frequently classified as "life" but neither plant nor animal - whereas dictionary definition ties itself to animals and plants. And the rest of the properties from the dictionary definition are satisfied by fire, at least as much as other accepted forms of life.

So there are only 2 logical options - accept fire as "life"; or accept that "life" is not a word deserving of scientific analysis.

But you choose a third, illogical option - analyze "life" as if it meant something unambiguous, yet not accept fire. No wonder you come across as a moron.

Comment Re:Not so sure about SteamOS (Score 1) 304

It's a help for sure. Previously, most phones needed a Windows client to be able to sync, copy data, manage, upgrade firmware etc. Possibly because Android is close to linux, it has become possible to completely manage most Android phones from a GNU/Linux desktop/laptop machine. Even rooting works using a linux computer for most phones.

And the debian / ubuntu chroot on Android rocks!

Comment Re:The things windows does, as a real OS (Score 1) 558

In other words you have no clue, but want to pretend as if you do. So point to "availability" of interpreters even if it is irrelevant. You keep saying about the functionality the increased power consumption enables but have no information on which programs use those 8 interpreters, to provide which functionality. And "late" posting by me surely increases power consumption of windows devices the world over, that's why you are so worried about it.

Ahhh, so you've not reached high school yet. That explains it.

Comment Re:And Fire qualifies for many definitions of Life (Score 1) 401

Fire satisfies all the conditions you mentioned. Yes, there are no global properties for life as per your "definition", which is why you need to hand wave so much. And use etc. , so that you can switch goalposts later. Like I said earlier, etc. is used to pretend more knowledge than one possesses, but on which you started another rambling about theology.

Comment Re:The things windows does, as a real OS (Score 1) 558

No the fact that you chose to speak about availability if interpreters rather than the functionality programs using them are providing, speaks volumes more than anything you can say. Words like pingeon-hole don't help in raising my hopes. Deliberately changing the topic from battery life to power use, even if one so clearly leads to another, crashes the hopes completely.

Incoherence like "you're late" followed by nothing better seals the end of discussion.

Comment Re:And Fire qualifies for many definitions of Life (Score 1) 401

Degrees : I can't figure out the exact word I want there, the whole word "life" having such an imprecise history. But I mean, viruses have clearly been considered both living and non-living by different educated people in the last century itself. You yourself mentioned movement as a necessity, which most plants show no more than air which you deny has any life.

You need to ramble incoherently about life because it doesn't mean anything as precise as deserving so much analysis. E.g. swimming. Can submarines swim? Which ones? Tiny water robots? In mercury ? It's useless analysis because swimming is a word historically used for humans and moving macroscopic animals manoeuvring in water. It doesn't mean anything precise.

Thinking? Can computers think? Even if they become capable of processing information far better than humans in all categories, one can always say they are not really thinking, are they? I mean, it's just a circuit. Bullshit. Thinking doesn't mean anything very precise either.

Same with life. Yes third graders are taught to distinguish between living and non-living. It's a useful cognitive exercise. No, it doesn't stand up to the intellectual scrutiny a 7th grader can apply to the methodology of distinguishing between living and non-living. Grow up from 3rd grader to 7th grader level, and see that "life" is a stupid word.

Comment Re:And Fire qualifies for many definitions of Life (Score 1) 401

While I agree that we can't pinpoint a precise definition of "thing" that makes something live we have a laundry list of descriptions of properties of "life", "living", "alive", etc.. We also know that life can end, so we define death as the absence of life in a once living creature. We know life occurs, we can test for numerous properties that indicate something living, but we don't have a magic element we can look at and say when this X is present it's "life".

In other words we have no clue what exactly life is. We attribute life in varying degrees to whatever is similar in some aspect to ourselves related to what we call life in humans.

We have learned enough about "life" to realize that things like air, water, and fire are not "life" as we used to believe

I don't think you have learnt anything, especially if your description of "life" is as muddled as described above.

Why is fire not life? And why is eucalyptus life? Below you say "mobility" is important for life. Fire is far more mobile than eucalyptus. Eucalyptus doesn't defecate - or if gaseous defecation is allowed then fire does it more readily. Replication and ingestion - both satisfy these conditions.

Ahhh, the eternal "etc.". Used to pretend one knows about something while knowing nothing of it. Especially when everything before "etc." doesn't solve the problem at all, the "etc." gives scope to change goalposts later.

Slashdot Top Deals

Staff meeting in the conference room in 3 minutes.

Working...