Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Logic Says It Should Be Legal (Score 1) 341

There are other things that are common here that aren't done in "more civilized" part of the world.

Male circumcision, you mean?

When are drugs like flupirtine going to be available in the US? When I moved here back around the turn of the century, I was rather flabbergasted that all the doctors could prescribe was opioids (except for the one opioid painkiller that isn't very habit forming, buprenorphine, which is only approved for treating drug addiction in the US).
Now, 17 years later, the situation is still the exact same.
The US is a 3rd world country compared to what Europe was a generation ago. But at immensely higher prices.
Americans think they get the world's best health care because they pay so much. But a quick look at statistics like life expectancy and mortality from diseases shows otherwise. It's a backwater.

Comment Re:And gassing Jews is effective too, so? (Score 1) 306

The argument is about whether it's MORAL to murder children.

No, it isn't. Before we can even begin to argue that, we need to arrive at mutually acceptable definitions of "murder" and "children". It makes as little sense as arguing whether it's moral to murder bananas (but at least we have a fairly good agreement on what a banana is).

All resorting to hyperbole like "murder children" does is mark you as someone not worth inviting to a rational discussion.

Comment Re:god-botherer? (Score 2) 79

Rather hypocritical of you, seeing how you are spreading the gospel of darwinism you were indoctrinated into absent any understanding, and sprinkled with racism.

I hate to spring to the defence of an AC against another AC, but you seem to be unaware that darwinism also implies an end to racism and even speciesism, because there are no dividing lines.
You need binary thinking to get hate crime, and modern biology is delightfully free of that..

His comment had nothing to do with souls or religion, his point was nobody gets to chose, and you wouldn't be barking that cr@p had you been born in the "wrong place", cuz you'd be jerky drying under the sun regardless of how "fit" you consider yourself to be.

"Being born in the wrong place" is a double absurdity - both because you can no more be the offspring of someone else than you could be the offspring of a wrench and a comet, and also because the human being isn't a binary on/off, but develops gradually with its body - the being is a product of both genetics and environment and becomes progressively more a self over the formative years, until perhaps losing the self again at the end. There is no magical soul involved, with a potential for being transplanted.

Killing poverty is exactly as reprehensible as handing out condoms in this regard. You prevent a lot of potential people from ever becoming aware entities, and open room for others who have a chance of leading better lives. It requires some seriously magical thinking to think one of these as bad and the other good.

As for "fittest", the offspring of people living in Kalahari are, up to modern times, those most fit (or, rather, least unfit) for surviving and reproducing in Kalahari. And the offspring of Inuit seal hunters are, up to modern times, those most fit for surviving and reproducing in that environment. Neither would face good chances of nurturing viable offspring if transplanted to the other environment.

Comment Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 680

Another is if it pushes the heat toward areas of weaker insulation and away from areas of stronger insulation. If the outside is cooler than the inside, then the temperature will leak out more rapidly. If the outside is warmer than the inside, then the warmth will leak in more slowly.

You're exactly wrong, and I'll try to show you why:

Consider your two premises for the "hot outside" situation:
(a): There are (at least two) areas with different insulation, and
(b): The outside is warmer than the inside.

If the air is still, you will reach an equilibrium, where the weak insulation spot can't easily cause more heat transfer to the air on the inside, because the air on the inside is already pretty hot. You end up with a room with areas that are hotter than others, and heat transfer within the room is mainly radiation and not convection.

Now, if you circulate the air on the inside, you provide cooler air to the (a) areas. Cooler air which can absorb more heat from the outside. You've disturbed the equilibrium, and go towards a new one where all the air in the room is subject to being heated through the (a) spots.
In effect, you create a convection oven, which works precisely on the principle of bringing cooler air to the heating elements.

Comment Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 680

Pretty much any ventilation system, forced air, even open windows, does a poor job of distributing the cooler air throughout a room, especially in houses. So in a very real way it does make parts of a room cooler than they would otherwise be without the fan.

Heat rises.
A ceiling fan blows air from the top of the room downwards.
How, exactly, does this make parts of a room cooler, except the very top?

Comment Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 3, Insightful) 680

People being in a room makes no difference on whether or not the ceiling fan is actually making the room cooler. People not being in a room will of course make it cooler just due to the heat waste we produce as people.

You're an excellent example of what I talk about.

The primary reason why we use ceiling fans is because air movement across skin helps increase evaporation which has a cooling effect on the person, not on the room. The room gets slightly warmer as a result, but the inhabitants feel cooler.

Running a ceiling fan when there are no people in a room has no cooling effect - at most, it distributes the air so the overall temperature becomes more uniform and slightly higher.

If leaving a ceiling fan on didn't make it cooler, we wouldn't use them when we were in the room, let alone when we weren't.

It does not make the room cooler. And most people are smart enough to not leave them on when there are no people to cool.

The amount of heat waste produced by the fan is also more then offset by the effects of the fan.

Poppycock, balderdash and codswallop. A closed room is an isolated system. The fan motor will produce heat. That makes the sum of heat (entropy) go up.

If you could cool down a room with an internal fan, you would have an invention that reduces entropy in an isolated system. This is impossible - the second law of thermodynamics applies.

Comment Re:My Instagram feed is nonexistent (Score 4, Insightful) 84

If my instagram feed is nonexistent, does that make me a nihilist?

No, I think it would make you a typical slashdot user. Someone with the ability to communicate with words instead of pictures and videos.
And somewhat depressed at seeing the rest of the world falling behind.

Comment Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 5, Interesting) 680

Heating a house for a day can easily consume less energy than cooling it for a week.

I think you might have swapped "day" and "week" there...

But yes, insulation is near free compared to cooling.

What should be obvious to anyone is that you can only "produce cold" by producing even more heat in a different part of the system.

But then again, I talked to someone who kept her fridge door open during the heat wave, thinking it would help cool the house. And I know several people who will run a ceiling fan when there's no one in the room, thinking it will keep it cooler.
I blame Reagan for ruining our educational system so kids don't learn to think anymore. More kids now may know the laws of thermodynamics, but fewer are able to apply it to anything.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you would know the value of money, go try to borrow some. -- Ben Franklin