Slashdot Mirror

This is a horrible, horrible idea. It will reek havoc with the existing natural tidal currents and completely change the ecosystems and natural patterns present in this tidal lagoons. Many of these species are already under heavy pressure from human activities and this could be the nail in the coffin, so to speak. Do these idiots even think before they plan these things? It's like they put ecological destruction primary in their considerations and then power production secondary. Hopefully these can be easily taken out with a boat and a proper load of high explosives.

I don't see how this project is more harmful to local wildlife than let's said a huge international seaport. Moreover, I'm quite sure it's actually helping wildlife in a global basis if we take into account most of the power production of the UK come from fossils fuel.

Sadly, this isn't a tech that many country can use since you need huge tide. (see this map : http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/see_m...)

Also let me ask the obvious question : what would it take for you to change your mind about this ?

Evidence. Nice, simple, evidence. You continue to say that I'm disagreeing with long accepted theories, that "majority of studies" find "significant increases in violent behavior". Yet you continually have no evidence to back up your claim. You are convinced that games definitively do increase violence yet have provided not a shred of evidence. The people who performed the study this article is about claimed that they only saw an increase in competitive aggression, and it was not limited to the violent games. Now you say the study itself is not freely readable. Well, then I'll take their word for the results of the study and not yours, if you don't mind.

Then please explain why you know better than 40 years of psychological research.

I never said that I did. I only said that after that 40 years of psychological research, the people who are performing the studies STILL don't agree with each other. Some remain steadfast that they increase violent behavior, others don't.

You disagree with long accepted theories, without any explanation, and without doing any research of your own (and despite agreeing that "there is an effect" whatever you mean by that).

What long accepted theories am I disagreeing with? I'm merely agreeing with one set of studies, and you agree with a different set of studies. The fact that so many studies can have such wild variety in results when studying the same thing means someone is making mistakes somewhere either in interpretation of results, methodology, or whatever. But what it does mean, is that there is no "accepted" theory yet. There are merely a few different theories that each have their own following of small numbers of people. I've done research of my own! :)

There's two studies here, complete with hypotheses tested, studies carried out, etc. The first study was to determine whether short-term aggression in a laboratory environment could be replicated for violent vs non-violent games (hmmm, sounds vaguely familiar). They determined that males were more aggressive than females. However ther was no evidence to suggest that people who play and prefer violent games are innately more aggressive than those who do not, aside from the biological effect of males being more aggressive than females. The second study examined whether video game violence exposure retains a predictive value regarding violent crime (controlling for family violence exposure, trait aggression and gender). Turns out it doesn't.

Here's a lovely paper about the overinterpretation of these "studies" and the myths about video game violence.

This one is a meta-analysis of a few different studies, showing some flaws in both the methodology, conclusions, and how these could be fixed to get better, more accurate studies. In addition, adequately explaining certain variables and theoretical questions that need to be addressed before any study could adequately explain the effects of violent video games.

I can provide more if you like. If you'll actually read them or care what they say. Essentially, there's a publication bias to keep producing studies and papers that claim video games cause violence. While there's also a publication bias to keep producing studies and papers that say they don't. So far neither side has conclusively proved anything. This one covers that angle and also talks about the limits to the ability of actually testing and measuring violence and aggression caused by video games.

Your move, if you decide to respond. I've provid

I think you'll find he was probably referring to this.

OTOH, this maybe a bit more refreshing.

More about conditional comments from quirksmode, and a clever usage of it.

/spends far too much time on the internet

Heh... I worked with images of Lenna in my DSP classes while working on my CmpE at Georgia Tech many moons ago. This article seems to disagree with you about the image being a good benchmark.

Wrong. Solar gain from radiation is a significant factor in design. See for instance this, or this, or this, or this.

Convection/Conduction are certainly at issue when there isn't sun (say, Seattle or Syracuse), but when there is, the radiation transmission is a major factor. This new technology sounds very promising. And yes, deciduous trees planted in good spots are a good low-tech approach.

-dB

There is even a third type of diamond that has been developed at City University in Hong Kong. It differs from the one found in nature (a cubic form) and the one found in meteorites (a hexagonal form) by the way the carbon atoms bond to each other: rhombohedral form.