Slashdot Mirror

Most Southern states don't require a front license plate either.

A map.

A SPECint graph shared on Quora shows this slowdown starting back in 2005.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/ma...

Moore's law is about cost per transistor (integration) and that graph shows it continuing up to the last data.

A SPECint graph shared on Quora shows this slowdown starting back in 2005.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/ma...

From evolutionary point of view, the ones who reproduces the most before dying are the winners. During millions of years life expectancy was around 40 years, to think about age above 40 year old is a bad reproductive investment, focusing in your most likely reproductive years is a far better strategy and give yo u a reproductive advantage on those who invest in old age (instead of focusing on short term). This can be linked with midlife crisis that seems programmed in our genes.. Recently (for a little more 1 century), humans are living older and nobody is prepared to have forty... Short term planing is in our genes because it used to give a reproductive advantage...

Religion is unsustainable for sure. When the population has an uncontrollable growth, when it reach the threshold called carrying capacity, there are naturally occurring regulating mechanisms to correct, none is pleasant (Most already exists when everything is fine but they are amplify under pressure: food/water/space shortage): sickness, high child mortality, civil unrest, conflicts, wars, ...

Looking at the data here, and plugging it in and crunching, you end up with this graph. Wind and nuclear are tied at about 12g CO2e / kWh, and solar is around 54 g CO2e / kWh. So nuclear is about equivalent to wind, and ahead of solar. Do you have data saying otherwise?

Mod this up. There's real data there instead of grandparent post with no citations.

Looking at the data here, and plugging it in and crunching, you end up with this graph. Wind and nuclear are tied at about 12g CO2e / kWh, and solar is around 54 g CO2e / kWh. So nuclear is about equivalent to wind, and ahead of solar. Do you have data saying otherwise?

If your criterion is raw reproductive potential, no. But because the human species is intensely social, we derives benefit from the knowledge and insight of those who have seen a lot. Just to start with, grandparenting improves parenting.

Until only two-three centuries ago, most people were illiterate in pretty much every country of the world. In some countries that is still a part of living memory. Oral retelling was the primary means of passing everything and since they were illiterate they also couldn't take notes. Rote memorization was actually an essential skill, casting shadows far into modern education. Live was harsh and short, looking at tables from ancient Rome show mortality was high in all age groups, only a small fraction would make it to old age. Unlike now in modern times where "most people" become 70-75 before it starts dropping like a cliff.

Basically, child birth at a high age was very likely to kill you. Without a strong mother your child was likely to die, in fact one in three died in the first year anyway. That menopause has survived evolution suggests it was a waste of resources, you'd be much more valuable as a village elder, wise woman or whatever because you'd be one of very few people with that accumulated knowledge and depth of experience. Which may also be why evolution hasn't done more to counteract the effects of aging, the value is inside your head. The body just needs to keep you alive with minimal resource drain on the tribe, they don't need a 50yo or 80yo hunter when they got 20yos for that.

Now though it's becoming a challenge, people expect to retire in their 60s yet live well into their 80s and 90s. And with increased needs for education - arguably some inflated, but some real too - work life is getting shorter in the other end as well. Combined that means a lot fewer people have to hold up the rest of society, IMHO the dangers of robots stealing our jobs are overrated. We need more robots or society will crumble under the weight of all those before or after work life or that can't keep up with modern work. Once even the Hodors of the world could do some work, today not so much anymore.

Trains in India are hyper something; loop is not something I would want to do here:
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/ma...

Is that the before or after picture?

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/ma...

Since Google almost exclusively hires high IQ people, Damore is absolutely right in saying that men have the edge on women. Anyone who doesn't understand why doesn't understand math and statistics.

By the way, that graph shows that men and women are equally intelligent on average. The Google discrepancy is a quirk of statistics and of the industry only wanting to hire above average people. If Google insisted on not discriminating by intelligence, and had diversity hiring by IQ, then the problem would disappear.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/ma...

Have one look at that graph that shows mens and women's IQ is the same. Then, understanding that Google only chooses high IQ talent, you will know everything you need to about gender discrepancy and tech. Men and women are on average just as smart as each other, but different enough from each other to make a difference in SOME fields, such as tech. That same graph explain also why men outnumber women in some of the worst drugery and dangerous jobs.

Ya think?

compare

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/ma...

and

https://d3f650ayx9w00n.cloudfr...

At 0% taxation you get zero tax revenue.
At 100% taxation (Communism) we get a certain amount of tax revenue.
At an arbitrary % of taxation between those two points, we get an amount of tax revenue higher than at 100% taxation.
If tax revenue is a continuous function of tax rate, then according to the mean value theorem there is a certain percentage between 0% and 100% at which tax revenue is maximized.

That doesn't make any damn sense at all. First, 100% taxation of income is not necessarily Communism. It may still include private ownership. Unless you mean 100% taxation of all types, including property tax, in which case yes, that's some approximation of Communism. But it also means all things of value adhere to the government, including all property and all revenue of any kind. There is no higher tax revenue than that. It's everything, by definition. So there is no arbitrary percent in between that could possibly produce higher tax revenue, all other things being equal.

Perhaps you left out a very important part of Laffer's theory, which is the theory that as government ownership of the economy approaches 100%, productivity declines, perhaps precipitously. There is historical evidence both for and against. In Soviet Russia, productivity was definitely miserable. Whether or not it actually declined, I don't know. I suspect it wasn't much worse than Czarist Russia, which it very closely resembled. It might have been better. They did manage to put the first satellite and the first human into space, after all. Meanwhile in ancient Egypt, where the pharaohs ruled as gods and owned not just the economy, but the people, body and soul, productivity was fantastically high. The Great Pyramids at Giza are the physical embodiment of that productivity, so huge and so durable that they're still standing thousands of years later.

US taxes specifically are below m%. Bush Jr. cut taxes. Revenue went down. That's pretty much the end of the discussion right there, but there's more. Historically, the peak nominal income tax rate in the US was 94% in 1944 and it was over 90% throughout the 1950s, while the US economy absolutely boomed, both during and after the war, so the destruction of Europe's industrial base contributed some, but not all. The effective rate was approximately 70%. Since you're so fond of calculus, let's look at the first derivative of GDP. It varies quite a bit, but there's a clear trend. All years with greater than 10% GDP growth happened before the Nixon era tax cuts. In the past 40 years of continuing low taxes and additional tax cuts, there has not been a single year of > 10% growth in GDP. This is historical evidence within the past century that m% is somewhere above 70%, if in fact it exists at all.

In short, the fundamental theorem of calculus and Laffer's theory are irrelevant in the face of the vagaries of human motivation, which have been and still are all over the map, and Laffer's fundamental assumption is flat wrong.

These ordinary turbines make a good visual reference: https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/ma... I assume the professors were able to do their math right but in the end we can only know what it costs and how it performs by building them.

I never said Keystone ends in Europe. I implied that if Canadian oil becomes available to the US, then it puts more pressure on Russian oil prices and forces them to sell it at fair market value to Eastern Europe.

First, Canadian oil is already available to the US. The first two phases of the Keystone pipeline system are already online and fully operational. The third phase is partly online, and expected to be fully operational in 2017. The fourth phase, Keystone XL, is what was nixed.

Second, the Keystone pipeline system is far from the only oil pipeline from Canada to the US. Here's a map that I found linked from here, easily found by a cursory web search. So, again, Canadian oil is already available to the US.

Third, Canadian oil has been available to the US for longer than we've had pipelines, as oil is commonly distributed via tankers. I'll stop beating that horse now, as I'm assuming you misspoke on that point and are aware that over 1/3 of US oil imports already come from Canada.

Fouth, you seem to be making a number of mutually-exclusive assumptions about oil. Specifically, you seem to be assuming that the cost of transporting Canadian oil to Europe by tanker is less than the cost of transporting Russian oil to Europe by pipeline. You seem to [correctly] imply that transport by pipeline is cheaper than transport by tanker in the context of Canada/US oil transport, but for some reason [falsely] imply the opposite in the context of supplying Europe with oil. If pipeline transport is cheaper than tanker transport, then tanker-transported Canadian oil wouldn't be able to undercut pipeline-transported Russian oil on price. If pipeline transport is not cheaper than tanker transport, then Keystone XL wouldn't lower the cost of Canadian oil.

Finally, you're overlooking many other aspects of this situation. Say, the fact that not all oils are born equal (though that's not really that much of an issue in this comparison, as both Canadian and Russian crude oils are shit). Maybe the fact that geographic location of refining and storage capacity dictate in large part the route that petrochemicals travel between production and consumption. Et cetera.

In a nutshell, I find your view overly simplistic and likely inaccurate. While it's true that increased production in North America (and indeed, the current bottleneck is in the distribution network, not on the production side) would put some negative price pressure on oil markets, there's no reason to suspect that this would be sufficient to bankrupt Gazprom.

Also, I'd like to point out that the "stupid oil pipeline" in Syria isn't actually an oil pipeline. It's a natural gas pipeline. And Russia extorts Eastern Europe via turning the screws on gas prices during winter. We should've been talking about gas, not oil. An oversight like that really makes me wonder why I spend so much time on my response, but feel free to reply if you're interested in how natural gas distribution works.

> You give 40+ hours of your week away to corporate bosses, just so you can feed yourself. That's called slavery.

So you think that sitting in your air-conditioned office posting on Slashdot and getting paid $100K for doing so is just exactly like slavery https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/ma...

Sometimes I wish you whiny little spoiled liberals could spend six seconds on the whipping post in order to start getting a clue how incredibly fortunate you are. I EXPECT you to be a whiny, spoiled brat, but when you start saying that your experience of sitting here posting on Slashdot is *slavery*, just like people who are chained up and whipped, you cross the line and I'm going to call you on it. Your ridiculous "I'm a victim because I didn't get a free iPhone 6" crap trivializes the real suffering of actual victims, and it's deeply offensive.

My Global Entry card came in a foil-lined envelope (like this) that says on the outside, "Protect your card's sensitive electronics -- and your privacy. Keep the card in this sleeve when not in use." If the US Gov't thinks a Global Entry card could potentially be sniffed from a similar vector, why think this would be much different?

Oh, and as for the size of the crane you need? This size (right hand side, yellow - the cab is in white for a size comparison). And as for how you transport them? Like this. Same way as they already do.

There are very real limits on how much energy density that can be obtained in a battery, and still make it robust enough to handle being bumped around in a vehicle.

Oh really? Where do you suppose that is?
https://qph.is.quoracdn.net/ma...

The oil industry would like us to believe we're into diminishing returns on battery improvements. The reverse is true.

As to being "bumped around" if gasoline were being proposed as a new fuel these days it would never be allowed. You forget what a dangerous substance cars are already using, without actually having too many incidents.

As for you're other comments, they are pie-in-the-sky. EVs are real and actual products. They're not just the future, they are already becoming the present. All the car manufacturer's know it.

The telco has a monopoly. The cable company, however, most often does not.

That's not true, go ahead and google "cable monopolies" or something like that. If you live in an area where you have more than one cable company, you are in an unusual situation. If you want just one example: Comcast in Maryland. They are a monopoly. If you want other examples, just google "cable monopolies." Here's a map of them around the US.

No, in fact, the telco laws say that Verizon must allow OTHER ISPs to use their wires to provide ISP service. How can a law that MANDATES access to the telco hardware for other ISPs be considered to be granting a monopoly to the telco for ISP service?

Why do you think that law needed to be written?

The law that mandates access to the telco hardware for other ISPs isn't granting them the monopoly: it is trying to prevent the monopoly. It would be circular to say "since there is a law that tries to prevent the monopoly from taking over, therefore, there is not a monopoly." Especially since the law didn't work.

Thought this would be interesting: http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/mai...

Take a look at this chart:

http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-bcc9036c04a16179b3ecfd490333a32e

Interesting examination of it on Quora: http://www.quora.com/Dharmesh-Bhatt/Quora-gold/Batteries-are-following-Moores-law

Killed Bin Laden is a good start.

Uh, killing? Bin Laden was on our side once, and what you are parroting is fake, unlike Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand. I wonder why its to hard to find the hi-res versions of that pic which were prevalent only a few years ago.

Where's the original photo? Timothy's membership of the JIDF serves to hide it.JIDF