Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Only half true article (Score 1) 266

Omission could very well be because addition of nuclear power is not that important. If they replaced coal with diesel generators, that would have been a blatant omission. It seems that article is talking about reduction of coal (not contested) to reduce CO2 emissions (nuclear has large up-front energy consumption for concrete, but far less operational C02 costs) and pollution (possibly less problematic with nuclear in short term). Also summary talks about relying more on renewable power sources, but at least here it means some baseline energy provider — either nuclear, fossils or batteries. As such, new nuclear plants are (at least to me) a rather non-story. TMMW.

Comment Other side of the coin (Score 1) 164

The other side of the GBP depreciation: companies that make apps in UK and profit is calculated in GBP, are making more profits in overseas markets. The selling point of currency depreciation is boot to exports at the expense of import consumption. In other words, producers get richer and consumers — poorer. Unless the trickle down economics actually work.

Comment Re:You don't know what a free market is, do you? (Score 2) 372

So, what you're saying is, corporations have always required government intervention and labor organization to succeed.

I would like to agree, but I'm not sure what you mean by “government intervention”. Do you consider modern law enforcement as government intervention? For example, guilds could be seen as [city] government tool to protect industry and keep prices high, but if there is no [formal] government, craftsmen would most likely make their own Mafia style organization, with burning down of competition. Would this type of labor organization be more free?

At least now we can dispense with the notion that there has ever been anything like a "free market".

It depends. If we go by wikipedia article on free market, global stock and commodities markets are pretty free. When it comes to every-day stuff we buy, asymmetry of “market power, bargaining power and information” makes it nigh impossible to have a truly “free market”, and ofttimes governments try to make markets more free than they naturally would.

P.S. I forgot to add trade secrets.

Comment Re:The earth is (Score 1) 436

I would still support giving wind and solar tech to poor communities. If they actually have coal (and not all do), then they will use up those resources that are easily available and when chips go down, the more unavailable stuff will be out of reach. If near surface coal stays there, bootstrapping will be easier.

Besides, we are trying to prevent the tragedy in the first place. Using fossil fuels IS the cause of the problem.

Finally, we can't force others to go through the industrialization evolution like we did. Solar and wind electricity tech is available in free market and it is competitive, and getting more so every year.

Comment Re:Breadth & Accuracy 120 years ago (Score 4, Insightful) 436

I would like to see the papers and the critics. If the critics were some internet randos who are not scientists in the field, then yes, criticism is most likely moot. If the criticism is about some specific aspect of the paper (for example, pointing out problems with statistical methods), then it can be valid so long as the critic understands the aspect he/she is criticizing. If the authors of the research are making policy suggestions, then basically everyone can be a critic (e.g. you if prove that black kids are doing wore in school than white kids, it does not mean that the *right* policy is to concentrate teaching resources on the white kids *or* to attempt to equalize education outcomes).

As for GP case, it is really silly to expect that rather well established field will be overthrown by “that particular thing looks fishy”. Is is like expecting to disprove gravity by pointing to birds.

Comment Re:The earth is (Score 2) 436

One problem with such large scale disasters is that it can throw civilization back quite a bit (and this has happened before). For example, do you think satellite communications would remain? Sure, they work now, but can the tech last? With 85% population gone because of harsh climate, who will maintain them? To keep satellites running you would need to preserve the whole supply chain of space tech, and if the current (advanced) supply chains are disrupted, high tech stuff may become unmaintainable. It might not be completely deadly, since we could revert to old style industry (and the abundant scrap metal is sure helpful), but current fossil fuel is much less accessible than in the past.

TL;DR collapse of populations can lead to dark ages. It is not just the same old, but with less people around.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you didn't have to work so hard, you'd have more time to be depressed.