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


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

Comment Re:That is correct (Score 1) 158

Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Mine would include not doing things that are clearly going to leave you in a situation that is worse, from your own evaluation, than the current situation, and which you have reason to know will have that result...unless, of course, all the alternatives would lead to even worse results.

Which let us note is something that humans can do. They can't or won't do it all the time, so that means that their intelligence is imperfect.

Comment Re:What complete nonsense (Score 1) 300

If you can give a tiny handout to people who will spend it and then avoid the global financial crisis. How is that not a good thing?

If I could pop a ballooon and then ...
If I could wish really hard and then ...
If I could wear a green shirt that day and then ...

The global financial crisis would not have been avoided by giving a tiny handout to people than it would, if I happened to wear a green shirt that day. It doesn't undo the years of bad decisions leading up to the crisis. It doesn't change that society was greatly malinvested due to so much of society putting their wealth into real estate investments of this sort. It doesn't change the amounts of leverage where high amounts of borrowed funds were used to make bad investments.

Sure, it would be a good thing, if it could be managed. But it wouldn't have been managed.

Comment Re:That is correct (Score 1) 158

There's no fundamental law against a giant flying reptile that breathes fire either, but that doesn't mean it's actually gonna happen.

The huge difference is that there will be considerable economic value in AI that just isn't going to be in flying fire-breathing reptiles. For example, markets and militaries both would be huge customers for an AI capable of intelligent decisions faster than a human can think or react.

Comment Re:It's a start! (Score 1) 221

Isn't this the part where all the "free market" believers tell us that "companies never pay taxes, they just pass them on to their customers"?

So far, we've got Trump proposing a 35% tax on US companies that build products overseas and Slashdot fools telling us that raising taxes on companies will lead to greater employment.

Did something change with the Trump inauguration that's suddenly made believers in "economic liberty and small government" love taxes?

Having some people believing in the job protecting power of 35% tariffs and other people believing in the free market just isn't working out since clearly there can only be one opinion for a huge group of people whose only characteristic is that they frequent a website. The solution is obvious. Determine what your opinion is on the subject. That'll nail it down for everyone.

Comment Re:EVEN TILLERSON says it's real. (Score 1) 266

That's always the problem with your "unless/except when it isn't" routine. It's a cynical statement, but that's all it is. It doesn't support the assertion, but it does't refute the assertion either. It also neither supports nor refutes alternative ideas and assertions to explore.

Exactly. You mostly get it. MightyMartian is not the only reader of Slashdot and thus, not the only person I'm writing for.

But this is not cynicism. This is purely a logical observation. I could equally assert that the Grays (a particular species of aliens that supposedly anal probe human test subjects) are behind global warming. Or God is angry at us for Facebook and turning up the thermostat. When unfounded, assertions are equally useless to us.

When evidence and reason are introduced, I then actually have to defend those assertions with something. I'm sure it'll be amusing to hear me explain how the Grays are hiding their giant coal burning mothership behind the Moon (obviously NASA is in on it!) or God's giant hand is just as completely undetectable to us as is the vast knob of his thermostat.

Then you can decide just how crazy I am.

And then you wonder why people are still so adamant on their side, despite all the work you've done arguing against them.

MightyMartian isn't going to be rationally talked out of a position he/she didn't get into rationally in the first place. But maybe next time, there will be more to that post (and who knows, maybe some persuasive evidence even!) than just a touchie feelie assertion.

Comment Re:The Issue is Settled? (Score 1) 266

is supposed to generate 1.2C

Sounds like it's more than 1.2 C which is why I used the higher numbers. And your math has sharply improved. Even with the lower number of 1.2 C per doubling, you will not get a 0.1 C increase in temperature from increasing CO2 from 400 ppm to 500 ppm. It'll be just under 0.4 C.

To add a third increase of 1.2C, we need to get the concentration up to 2240ppm. There's not enough oil in the world to get CO2 concentrations up this high.

Not in proven reserves, at least. There's also coal which does have enough. But at this point, we're speaking of using a lot of fossil fuels for a long time to get that level of direct radiative effects.

Comment Re:The Issue is Settled? (Score 1) 266

According to the actual science, an additional 100ppm will result in an increase of 0.1C warming. It will then take 200ppm more to get another 0.1C of warming. And then 400ppm to get a third 0.1C.

No. A doubling of CO2 by 400 ppm is expected to result in an increase of 1.5 to 2.0 C in short term heating plus some undetermined amount of long term heating (depends on how seriously you take the positive feedback claims). So for your example of a 100 ppm increase, it's going to be at least 0.5 C increase in temperature just from short term heating. That model incidentally is consistent with the temperature readings of the past century and a half.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell