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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment We've already done it (Score 1) 639

The global economy runs on energy and material resources.

We call the mechanism we use to track the presence and value of these inputs "money".

We have collectively (publicly and privately, legally and illegally) lent out far more money than what accurately represents the real wealth (i.e., usable stuff) in the global system.

When the global economy recognizes this (it happens periodically, called a 'recession'), the revaluation of money to correspond with current real assets will cause a shrinkage in economic activity corresponding to the removal of excess money from the system. We cannot avoid this, since we have already made the claim on future output and spent it. If we cannot pay down debt in real wealth, we'll default on it.

How much less energy/resources will we consume then? (The US debt stands at over 100% of GDP, for example. We call a 10%+ reduction in economic activity a 'depression'. )

Thus will we reduce the generation of CO2 into the atmosphere, and then we'll get to see the effect on climate.

That is, those of us still generating CO2 for ourselves will see.

Comment Re:Why don't they use their money for good? (Score 1) 703

We've had the tech to do that for decades. Run the numbers (including costs of building the plant and fuel to run it) and see why nobody does carbon >> diesel with CO2 as a feedstock.

Now, if you took coal, extracted the thorium for energy, that reactor would give you the heat to do coal >> diesel directly, with some left over for the lights in town.

Doing that mainly consists of weaning the energy players off of nuclear tech that goes 'BOOM'. But they like their toys and Square-Jawed General act a bit too much, plus they're suckered by their sunk costs.

Comment He's not afraid of Artificial Intelligence (Score 0) 294

He's afraid of Human Stupidity.

It's a rather jarring experience to look at human behavior when one can see obvious improvements based on simple reasoning.

The thought that 'I might be one of those dolts!!' chafes at a large ego, I'll speculate. Better to fantasize about Machine Greatness being some turbo-charged superpower condition rather than swallow pride and join the human race*.

*(h/t HHGG)

Comment Re:Wonderful (Score 1) 138

My phone doesn't report to my employer when it knows I stop in front of a store.

That's only because the price of the data is too high. The economies of scale that IoT will provide will make it attractive for him to buy your data soon enough.

Or did you really think that such things "just don't happen"? First they had you peeing in a cup for them, then they demanded your Facebook password - why is this NOT next?

Comment Want to get rid of those extra 'services'? (Score 1) 150

Just ask them to quote you the price. Even if they hem and haw about the price "varying between labs, subject to insurance adjustments" etc, the question alone has been enough to get my doc/NP to back down repeatedly in dictating which tests I should get. And if they shine it on that easily, I'm pretty sure it was non-essential to begin with.

Comment Unhappy Programmer (Score 1) 121

(1) providing a better understanding of the impact of affective states on the creativity and analytical problem-solving capacities of developers, (2) introducing and validating psychological measurements, theories, and concepts of affective states, creativity, and analytical-problem-solving skills in empirical software engineering, and (3) raising the need for studying the human factors of software engineering by employing a multidisciplinary viewpoint.

Buzzwords make me sad.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers