Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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 Re: Uh, why? (Score 1) 142

If you think Vista was bad you're not old enough to remember NT 4.0.

I remember the sound system crashing on my Vista laptop, sending a horrible, unstoppable screeching through the speakers. Basically it was an audio snow crash. Yet everything else worked normally; I was able to save my work and shut the system down. And I remember thinking, "that was horrible, but so much less horrible than it could have been."

Comment Re:Good grief (Score 1) 252

>The thesis of this "scientific paper" is basically like a couple of tokers sitting around in their parents' basement saying "DUUUUDE... what if the money in our savings account DOUBLED EVERY YEAR?!???

Again this is not a critique of the paper, it is a critique of tokers sitting around in their parent's basement. There is no substance in your criticism to address, it really is just an expression of your feelings toward the paper's author. Aside from the fact that you're just name-calling, the numerical basis you've used for comparison is just wrong.

Now it so happens I have you at a disadvantage: I've actually read the paper. It's closer the tokers sitting around saying, "How can we achieve a 7% annual compound interest rate sustained over ten years with our portfolio," which is roughly what doubling your money in ten years takes. The authors are talking about what it would take to half carbon emissions which would be a 6.6% reduction each year, and they discuss methods for reducing them, which they break down into near term no-brainer, near-term difficult, and long term speculative. As is usual the further out you go the less concrete and certain you can be. This is normal in economic projections that go twenty or more years out.

Now you may disagree with the specific means proposed, some of which are quite drastic (e.g. attempting to recover external costs through inheritance taxes). But there is nothing inherently irrational about starting with a goal -- zero carbon emissions by 2050 -- then asking what it would take to achieve that. Nor is there anything inherently ridiculous with coming up with the answer that it'll take a mix of things, some of which looking twenty or more years into the future we can't predict yet.

Comment Re:Percentage doesn't matter (Score 1) 141

Oh, I think the percentage bit is significant. It shouldn't be news that they've acknowledged reality; but it's remarkable that their responses is so meaningless.

It makes me wonder whether this is just marketing BS or whether they're really that incoherent about strategy.

Many proprietary software companies have prospered in an era of open source acceptance -- even when very good free software alternatives for their products exists (Microsoft, Oracle). But although we don't tend to think of them that way, they tend to be value-priced. You get a lot of (not necessarily great) software engineering for your $199 Windows license fee.

But the play this game you need scale to amortize development costs over many users. If you have more of a niche product competing against a solid open source competitor is going to be really, really hard. As in SAS charges almost $9000 for a single seat license, and that's good for only a year; thereafter you'll have to fork over thousands of dollars every year. That kind of cash pays for a lot of R training.

Comment Re:Beyond idiotic (Score 1) 252

Well, there's good reason to hope on the carbon emissions front.

The global trend toward replacing coal with natural gas will have a massive impact on human CO2 footprint. And this isn't the result of the strangling hand of regulation either: gas plants are simply more economically efficient and easy to run. It also coincidentally generates less than half the CO2 per kwH that coal does.

This trend alone makes hitting world CO2 goals a lot more feasible. A better electricity grid will allow more diverse energy sources as well. It's really quite feasible to increase electricity production while reducing CO2 emissions.

Comment Re:It Doesn't Work That Way (Score 1) 252

Well, your point is well taken: Moore's law is an empirical observation, not the result of a plan.

However it doesn't follow in the least that doubling clean energy requires a doubling of investments. That's because clean energy is actually benefits more form economies of scale than fossil fuels. To double your output of electricity from coal, you may get better at building coal power plants, and you may enjoy some economies of scale as people invest in infrastructure to transport coal, but you still have to pay for twice as much coal. Renewables use slack resources that are simply being thrown away now: sunshine, wind, water flow etc. Of course there are physical limits to renewables, but we're nowhere near them yet.

Comment Re:As usual, more detail needed (Score 1) 121

Generally speaking you should never, ever change your behavior based on the results of a single study -- even a controlled, double-blind study, much less an epidemiological survey. You should wait for a comprehensive literature review paper in a high-impact peer reviewed journal before you consider a result reliable.

That said, correlation is still quite valuable -- to researchers. Science doesn't have the resources to come up with quick, definitive answers on a question like this, involving a complex system that is expensive and ethically tricky to monkey with. So science spends a lot of time doing safer, more affordable stuff like looking for epidemiological correlations, until it can justify spending a lot of rare research dollars on something more probative. And those dollars are about to get a lot rarer too.

Comment Re:Similar (Score 1) 206

Kiribati is going underwater. Does anyone else care? *sigh*

I could rob you and beat you to pulp. Would anyone else care? The answer is that wise people would care, because they'll know if I get away with that I'll be getting away with a lot more.

Same with climate change. Yes, Kiribati may disappear. But the Kiribatians aren't the only people who will pay; in fact most people in the world will end up paying. The way this works is that we all get some up front economic benefit from unregulated carbon emissions and we all pay for the consequences later, but the trick is that the benefits and costs aren't spread uniformly. Some people make a killing on cheap fossil fuel and then can move the bulk of the resulting assets out of the way of climate change. The worst hit are those whose wealth is in land -- the Kiribatians obviously, but also farmers in places which become unsupportably arid.

Comment Re: Oh well (Score 2) 206

I don't think it's greed. I think it's wishful thinking.

And it absolutely would be great if there were no downsides to burning all the fossil fuels we can lay our hands on. Most people on this site are too young to remember the smog we had in the 1960s and 1970s; they're imprinted on a time when gas was cheap, air was clean, and anthropogenic climate change was (as far as the general public was concerned) undreamt of. Who wouldn't want that to be true?

Comment Re:Can't see the forest for all the trees (Score 1) 388

Batman vs Superman was an okay one time movie, not worth the popcorn and soda that a theater experience requires, but watchable one time movie, just to see WonderWoman and Aquaman.

Certain actors shouldn't fill certain roles. It would have been much better to find an unknown to play Batman than put Ben Affleck in that role. He doesn't have the ability to pull it off. Being behind the mask, requires greater acting ability than normal, because you have to convey more with movement. It doesn't work for Ben as Batman. Though He works in "The Accountant" because his acting ability is fairly wooden, like the character, it works.

Henry Cavill sort of works for Superman, mainly because he "looks" the part.

Comment Re:In Other Words (Score 1) 413

You did not read what I said, and are inverting the logic. Yes, the Universe manifestly DOES have a few "simple" rules a.k.a. the laws of physics, and HAS produced rocks. But that is literally irrelevant to the point that there is nothing about rocks -- or, if you prefer, the laws of physics and the medium in which they operate -- that appears "designed". The laws are regular mathematical laws and we have no evidence for some sort of highly imaginative "field" of possible mathematical law sets and possible Universal media obeying them that a designer can select from to create the design, let alone evidence for the insane recursion relation in complexity and design implicit on the existence of such a designer.

Any sentient "designer" of a Universe plus their Super-Universe within which it builds the Universe has more complexity (and greater information content) than the Universe that they designed and built. If complexity implies design, then every designer and their Universe must have a still more complex designer in a still more complex Universe. If you wish to assert that this recursion terminates anywhere, so that you can call the designer at that level "God" or "The Master Simulation Programmer", then you no longer assert that complexity necessarily implies a designer, in which case there is no good reason to apply the rule at all even in the first instance without evidence!

Quite aside from this, rocks specifically do not exhibit any of the characteristics we generally associate with designed things, and we have quite detailed mathematical models for the probable history of rocks that do not require or benefit from (in the specific sense of being improved by) any assumption of active design. Neither, frankly, do the laws of physics.

As I pointed out in another thread, the following is a classroom example of incorrect logic:

All men are mortal.
My dog is mortal.
Therefore, my dog is a man.

All computational simulations are discretized.
The Universe is discretized (or not, see other replies).
Therefore, the Universe is a simulation.

You argument is even worse:

Rocks, that do not appear to be designed, can be designed anyway.
Therefore, we can never say that rocks do not appear to be designed.

Say what?

My dog, that does not appear to be immortal, might be immortal anyway.
Therefore we can never say that dogs are mortal.

Sure we can. What you might get away with is the assertion that there is a very small chance that some living dog (including my currently living dog, that isn't dead yet!) might turn out to be immortal. However, every single dog since wolves came out of the cold that was born more than thirty years ago is to the very best of our observational knowledge and theoretical knowledge of dog biology dead as a doorknob and every living dog that any of us have ever seen appears to be aging and we all understand how aging and disease and accidents all limit life. To assert immortal dogs you have to just make stuff up -- invent things like "dog heaven" where all dead dogs run free and have an unlimited supply of bones, or imagine that somewhere there might be a very lucky ex-wolf that failed to inherit an aging gene and that has never had a fatal disease or a fatal accident and that somehow has eluded our observational detection -- so far -- and (ignoring the second law of thermodynamics and the probable future evolution of the Universe based on the laws of physics) assume that that dog will somehow survive longer than the Universe itself probably will. Both of which are pretty absurd.

So I repeat, there is absolutely nothing about rocks that makes us think that they are designed. That does not imply that they might not be designed after all, it is not a logical statement that rocks could not have been designed, it is an empirical statement that, just as dogs appear to be mortal (and not humans, however easy it is for dogs to make the mistake, especially around dinner time:-), rocks appear not to be designed. When I find a rock on the ground as I walk along, I do not quickly look around trying to figure out who designed the rock because it looks so very much like a made thing. Quite the opposite. And, I can almost guarantee, so do you!

Comment Re:Conversely... (Score 1) 242

If the situation is exactly the same up to the point of your two options, then there is a "Self digging shovel" available at some level in both situations. In situation #2, it isn't for sale, and unless you can conclusively promise shovel in one year, for only $5,000 then option 1 is still the only valid consideration. Further, if option 2 says there are no patents (assuming that is the change) then I can build a shelf digging shovel today for whatever price, and as long as the value I get out of it is better than before, I'll get my $20,000 shovel either way.

1) 20000 for shovel get 30000 use from shovel in year one. Year two is how much (no answer in option 1) is it free, or nearly free? Does it cost 20K / year forever (unlikely) or what. Incomplete information leads to bad decisions.

2) Can't buy Self Digging shovel (unknown reason). Promise that they will be available in a year for $5000 (if you believe vaporware promises)

all the unknown variables make your assumptions useless, which is why I chose (and still choose) option 1. Based on the INFORMATION I have, it is the only real choice.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you fail to plan, plan to fail.

Working...