First of all, you're almost 30 minutes late on noting the mistake, i already posted correcting it. Second of all, you're ignoring the part about how much of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide, which is the relevant bit. 29 billion tons is definitely significant when compared to the 780 billion tons that are currently in the atmosphere.
Okay, this is getting marked as flamebait, presumably because of the Nazi tie-in, and maybe he is going a little overboard with attributing malicious intent to people. However i've been hearing about this bill a fair bit lately from some disabled friends of mine, and they are kind of concerned. Here's one of the articles that's been passed around: Suicide by Choice? Not So Fast.
So less "evil Nazis out to kill you and take your property" and more "doctors making ill-informed opinions about what they think is best for you but actually isn't", but it still is a concern for a lot of people.
And before anyone else points it out, the atmosphere masses 5,000,000 billion tons, not 5,000 billion. Every other number was quoted from the relevant citation, but that one i tried to convert from 5x10^18 kg to tons by hand and screwed up =P
Yeah, the 29,000 number is definitely wrong. I don't know if they mixed up billion or million or got confused by british vs american notation or what. There also seem to be a variety of weird numbers out there. Wikipedia for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions) puts the world CO2 production at 29,888,121 thousand tons. What?
But in any case, 29 billion tons is nothing to sneeze at. The atmosphere masses 5,000 billion tons, however CO2 is only a fraction of that. The total CO2 in the atmosphere right now masses about 780 billion tons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere) which means we're adding about 3.7% more CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Assuming there were no other factors in either direction (which isn't true, there are definitely other factors in _both_ directions) we'll have increased the CO2 concentration the atmosphere by 50% in about 14 years and we'll have doubled it in about 27 years.
You're comparing the entire 2011 hurricane season to a single month in 2012. If you keep trying to mislead people, then at this rate pretty soon you'll be trying to compare the weather during a single day to every hurricane in the previous century.
For the record, according to wikipedia:
2011: 20 depressions, 19 storms, 7 hurricanes, 4 major hurricanes
2012 (so far): 19 depressions, 19 storms, 10 hurricanes, 1 major hurricane
So so far there have been more hurricanes this year than last, though not quite as strong (at least not on the top end.) Of course we still have a month or so to go before we can really tally up the statistics.
I particularly "liked" this guy who was complaining about how nice the weather in Virginia hours before the storm was supposed to make landfall. I don't know how much it was directly affected by the first part of the hurricane, but according to the news last night Virginia was one of the states being affected by the blizzards spawned by the hybrid storm, so i doubt the weather is quit so nice there by this point.
Did you not watch the video? Or are you nitpicking some particularly technical definition of "explosion" that you don't think the event quite met? Because it sure looked like an explosion to me.
You're half right. There are plenty of modern Android devices with microSD. For example, the LG Optimus G, which is very closely related to the LG Nexus 4. Likewise the Galaxy S line has microSD, but the Galaxy Nexus does not. Either it's some kind of weird coincidence, or Google is encouraging manufacturers not to include microSD for the Nexus devices lately. (My Nexus One obviously has a microSD slot, but i believe it was the only Nexus device to do so.)
Which means unless something changes i'm going to have to choose between a Nexus device and a microSD slot. If that remains the case for much longer i'm tempted to go with the microSD slot, root whichever device it is and install CyanogenMod.
Looks like you've already got lots of data points, but in my case a quick check with SpaceMonger shows:
2.5 GB - Music (I'll sometimes use Pandora at home, but when i'm out driving or rollerblading at the beach i want to use my own playlists rather than stream stuff.)
1.4 GB - Audiobooks (I always try to have several books on there at a time, because it sucks if i finish a book up away from home and find i don't have any other new ones downloaded yet.)
1.4 GB - Pictures and video (I'll occasionally transfer stuff off, but i always leave some pictures on my phone to show to others.)
0.8 GB - Apps (Zombies Run! Is the biggest culprit right now, but only because i don't have room to download any other apps with particularly large space requirements.)
0.2 GB - Podcasts
0.25 GB - Miscellaneous data saved by a number of apps
0.4 GB - Free space
That adds up to about 7 GB, presumably because of rounding errors, but if i do properties on the whole card it comes out to 6.97 GB of used space and 436 MB of free space. (And the usual discrepancy that an 8 GB card doesn't actually hold 8 GB).
And although i don't have it at hand right now, my Nook tablet at home has several GB of ripped movies on it, which is another large suckage of space that i'm not even trying to use my phone for.
All the leaks seemed to indicate the Nexus 4 would have no microSD slot, and none of the news this morning seems to contradict that. I'd pick one up in an instant if not for that fault.
My ancient Nexus One has an 8 GB microSD card in it, and that filled up ages ago. So getting the 8 GB Nexus 4 would be a non-starter, and i don't expect it would take me long to fill up the 16 GB version either. I don't care what Google says, streaming everything off the cloud is not an option. I'm happy with T-Mobile for the price i'm paying, but they don't have the best coverage. (And from what i understand other carriers that have better coverage have stricter limits on data usage instead.)
Really? So where do you propose we should be moving everyone that is at zero risk from hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires, and any other natural disasters i'm forgetting about right now?
I don't know about the rest of the world, but in North America we'd pretty much have to move the entire population of Mexico, the US and southern Canada up into the Canadian Shield. Trying to move close to half a billion people into north-east Canada would be a logistics and economic nightmare, and i'm pretty sure the kinds of moves that would be required in other parts of the world would be equally drastic.
Realistically, if we don't want to pack all of humanity into tiny fractions of the earth's surface, we have to accept that almost everywhere people live is going to be subject to the occasional natural disaster. Yes, we should avoid the _worst_ areas and/or have contingency plans for those spots, but we're not going to be able to avoid everything.
>> Arguing that PC games give players too many configuration options (even if they choose to use them) is ridiculous.
>Never heard that one before, normally More Options = Good.
As someone who has worked in the game industry, both on PC and console games, the phobia about about giving the user too many options does exist, and it transcends the hardware the game is on.
For one of the PC games i was working on some decision was made about a certain relatively minor element of gameplay (unfortunately ten years on i've forgotten what exactly the element was.) It was a simple either/or decision, and couple of us on the team actual preferred to play the game the other way. So we talked to the lead designer about making it customizable in the options.
The short version of his response amounted to a fear that users would go into options and fiddle around with things and change this particular setting, then they would play the game and think it sucked (because of course he's chosen to go with the way he thought most people would enjoy, ergo...) but not realize it was because they changed the options. So instead of switching back to the other configuration they'd just think the game itself sucked.
I don't know how much of that was a reasonable argument, and how much was "i've decided what's best so everyone should play that way," but in fairness that guy has been lead designer for multiple best selling games, so clearly in general he knows what he's doing.
So the attitude that "too many options is bad for the user" is out there in the game industry (and the business software industry as well for that matter) and does have an effect on how games (and other software) are developed.
"Yes the Nexus will be a little crisper, but not much more"
Uh, what? You think 33% greater density is "not much more"? According to Apple's own numbers the iPad's Retina Display only has 22% greater pixel density than the Nexus 7, and the MacBook Pro 13's Retina Display only has 5% greater pixel density.
So you're saying that 20% greater pixel density in a device that's much larger is a HUGE deal, but 33% greater pixel density in a device that's close to the same size doesn't really matter?
I'm comparing that particular aspect because Apple made such a big deal out of the "Retina Display" when they came out with it, and following that lead Apple fans always make a big deal out of how wonderful and beautiful the iPad's screen is. Apple is the one who decided to make pixel density a mainstay of their advertising campaign, so it kind of stick out like a sore thumb when they release a product that not only isn't "Retina Display" quality, but isn't even as good as the competition.
Of course if you really want to look at other factors, we could look at CPU. For quite awhile Apple has had inferior CPUs to the best Android devices, and that continues to be true here as well, 800 MHz -1 GHz dual core Apple A5 vs 1.3 GHz quad core Cortex-A9.
As for the size, maybe some people have made a big deal out of the larger Android phones, but personally i've never made any such claims. In fact i'm kind of concerned with the apparent arms race in screen sizes. I'm quite happy with the 3.7" screen on my Nexus One, and am a little worried about whether i'll be able to find a decent phone that fits comfortably in my pocket when i upgrade. And i'm a bit dubious about the claim that the iPad _Mini_ scores better than some other tablet because it's 0.9" larger. If that's true, shouldn't it be twice as much better if it was 1.8" larger? And three times as much better if it were 2.7" larger? And at that rate pretty soon you're back to regular iPad size. If the goal of the product is to be a smaller version, you're in a tough spot arguing that larger = better. 7" is too small, and 8" is too large, but 7.9" is just right? Why? Because Apple said so?
So for $80 more than the Nexus 7 version with the same amount of storage (16GB: $330 iPad mini, $250 Nexus 7) you get a 0.9" larger screen but significantly worse pixel density. And this is of course before the 32GB Nexus 7 announcement next week. The rumor is that the 32GB version will be $250 and the other models will drop in price. If so that means at the 32GB level you'll have to pay $180 more to get an iPad mini with worse resolution.
So that would be #4. As i said, i have no idea which happened first, i haven't done the research. But if Samsung decided to sell their screens elsewhere instead of to Apple, then of course Apple would start finding replacement manufacturers. And then Apple would have even more reason to sue Samsung (all the same "positive" reasons they had before, but less risk of significantly reducing their supply chain.)
1: Apple and Samsung get involved in lawsuits.
2: Apple decides to reduce orders from Samsung and order from competitors.
3: Apple demands lower prices for components.
4: Samsung decides to reduce the supply available to Apple.
It sounds like all of those have been gradually happening to a greater and greater degree over time. I don't know which particular item happened first, but once the cycle started it just kept on escalating. The smaller the size of the order by Apple (either in terms of number of components or price per component) the less valuable the contract becomes, and the more Samsung is going to focus on finding alternatives to sell to. The smaller the number of units Samsung makes available to Apple and the less they're willing to budge on price, the more Apple is going to focus on finding alternatives to buy from. The less dependent each of them get on each other, the more the gloves come off in the courtroom. The more lawsuits that get filled, the less comfortable both of them are going to feel about depending on the other to sell/buy components to/from.
How will this ruling affect earthquake predictions from this point on?
"Scientists predicted that sometime this week a massive earthquake will cause all of Italy to break off and fall into the ocean, killing everyone. This marks the 27th week in a row that scientists have made that prediction. When asked about the failure of the previous 26 predictions to come true a lead scientist replied 'It's always possible we're in error and the earthquake might be a little smaller, and might not kill everyone, and possibly might not happen at all. But better safe than sorry. We're sticking with our prediction, so don't say we didn't warn you.'"
Windows 7 is a pretty decent OS, and you can make it look just like XP or earlier if you want. And hopefully by the time they stop supporting Windows 7 they'll have come out with something decent for Windows 9, or the PC will be totally irrelevant.
Re:Total crap -- /. summary is wrong (stunning!)
on
The Great Meteor Grab
·
· Score: 1
"Also, you cannot just go into public lands and take a fencepost because you think it'd make a nice addition to your yard."
Wait, what?!? Damnit! What kind of legal precedent does that set in regards to my plan to go harvest space fenceposts?
On a more serious note, i did really like James P Hogan's "Voyage From Yesteryear." Before reading it i'd always had the impression that Communism sounded like a nice idea but had serious issues on a large scale. I felt the book put forward a completely believable scenario for a stable Anarcho-Libertarian-Communist society. All you need to achieve it is get some advanced tech, and then burn the current social system down to the ground and destroying the very roots of the culture itself.
I'm not sure if it was more heartening for convincing me that something resembling utopia is actually possible, or disheartening for convincing me it's something we'll never achieve on this planet unless we go through an incredible amount of pain and suffering first.
Uh, that makes sense if there are large fragments that are broken up by damage. But if there's only 0.098% of the DNA left intact, it's not a question of where it broke, it's a question of where it didn't break. You're talking little bits that survived amidst > 99% decay.
No, the time range does not work. If the study is correct then a 5,210 year old DNA sample (which is _way_ too young for a Neanderthal) would already have gone through ten half-lives, so 1/(2^10) of the DNA would still be intact, or about 0.098% of it.
You're correct that dinosaurs and Neanderthal existed on completely different time scales, but you're completely ignoring that the claims made by this paper would make getting DNA samples impossible for _both_ of them.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, you're almost 30 minutes late on noting the mistake, i already posted correcting it. Second of all, you're ignoring the part about how much of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide, which is the relevant bit. 29 billion tons is definitely significant when compared to the 780 billion tons that are currently in the atmosphere.
Okay, this is getting marked as flamebait, presumably because of the Nazi tie-in, and maybe he is going a little overboard with attributing malicious intent to people. However i've been hearing about this bill a fair bit lately from some disabled friends of mine, and they are kind of concerned. Here's one of the articles that's been passed around: Suicide by Choice? Not So Fast.
So less "evil Nazis out to kill you and take your property" and more "doctors making ill-informed opinions about what they think is best for you but actually isn't", but it still is a concern for a lot of people.
And before anyone else points it out, the atmosphere masses 5,000,000 billion tons, not 5,000 billion. Every other number was quoted from the relevant citation, but that one i tried to convert from 5x10^18 kg to tons by hand and screwed up =P
Yeah, the 29,000 number is definitely wrong. I don't know if they mixed up billion or million or got confused by british vs american notation or what. There also seem to be a variety of weird numbers out there. Wikipedia for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions) puts the world CO2 production at 29,888,121 thousand tons. What?
But in any case, 29 billion tons is nothing to sneeze at. The atmosphere masses 5,000 billion tons, however CO2 is only a fraction of that. The total CO2 in the atmosphere right now masses about 780 billion tons. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere) which means we're adding about 3.7% more CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Assuming there were no other factors in either direction (which isn't true, there are definitely other factors in _both_ directions) we'll have increased the CO2 concentration the atmosphere by 50% in about 14 years and we'll have doubled it in about 27 years.
You're comparing the entire 2011 hurricane season to a single month in 2012. If you keep trying to mislead people, then at this rate pretty soon you'll be trying to compare the weather during a single day to every hurricane in the previous century.
For the record, according to wikipedia:
2011: 20 depressions, 19 storms, 7 hurricanes, 4 major hurricanes
2012 (so far): 19 depressions, 19 storms, 10 hurricanes, 1 major hurricane
So so far there have been more hurricanes this year than last, though not quite as strong (at least not on the top end.) Of course we still have a month or so to go before we can really tally up the statistics.
I particularly "liked" this guy who was complaining about how nice the weather in Virginia hours before the storm was supposed to make landfall. I don't know how much it was directly affected by the first part of the hurricane, but according to the news last night Virginia was one of the states being affected by the blizzards spawned by the hybrid storm, so i doubt the weather is quit so nice there by this point.
Did you not watch the video? Or are you nitpicking some particularly technical definition of "explosion" that you don't think the event quite met? Because it sure looked like an explosion to me.
You're half right. There are plenty of modern Android devices with microSD. For example, the LG Optimus G, which is very closely related to the LG Nexus 4. Likewise the Galaxy S line has microSD, but the Galaxy Nexus does not. Either it's some kind of weird coincidence, or Google is encouraging manufacturers not to include microSD for the Nexus devices lately. (My Nexus One obviously has a microSD slot, but i believe it was the only Nexus device to do so.)
Which means unless something changes i'm going to have to choose between a Nexus device and a microSD slot. If that remains the case for much longer i'm tempted to go with the microSD slot, root whichever device it is and install CyanogenMod.
Looks like you've already got lots of data points, but in my case a quick check with SpaceMonger shows:
2.5 GB - Music (I'll sometimes use Pandora at home, but when i'm out driving or rollerblading at the beach i want to use my own playlists rather than stream stuff.)
1.4 GB - Audiobooks (I always try to have several books on there at a time, because it sucks if i finish a book up away from home and find i don't have any other new ones downloaded yet.)
1.4 GB - Pictures and video (I'll occasionally transfer stuff off, but i always leave some pictures on my phone to show to others.)
0.8 GB - Apps (Zombies Run! Is the biggest culprit right now, but only because i don't have room to download any other apps with particularly large space requirements.)
0.2 GB - Podcasts
0.25 GB - Miscellaneous data saved by a number of apps
0.4 GB - Free space
That adds up to about 7 GB, presumably because of rounding errors, but if i do properties on the whole card it comes out to 6.97 GB of used space and 436 MB of free space. (And the usual discrepancy that an 8 GB card doesn't actually hold 8 GB).
And although i don't have it at hand right now, my Nook tablet at home has several GB of ripped movies on it, which is another large suckage of space that i'm not even trying to use my phone for.
All the leaks seemed to indicate the Nexus 4 would have no microSD slot, and none of the news this morning seems to contradict that. I'd pick one up in an instant if not for that fault.
My ancient Nexus One has an 8 GB microSD card in it, and that filled up ages ago. So getting the 8 GB Nexus 4 would be a non-starter, and i don't expect it would take me long to fill up the 16 GB version either. I don't care what Google says, streaming everything off the cloud is not an option. I'm happy with T-Mobile for the price i'm paying, but they don't have the best coverage. (And from what i understand other carriers that have better coverage have stricter limits on data usage instead.)
Really? So where do you propose we should be moving everyone that is at zero risk from hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, tornadoes, floods, wildfires, and any other natural disasters i'm forgetting about right now?
I don't know about the rest of the world, but in North America we'd pretty much have to move the entire population of Mexico, the US and southern Canada up into the Canadian Shield. Trying to move close to half a billion people into north-east Canada would be a logistics and economic nightmare, and i'm pretty sure the kinds of moves that would be required in other parts of the world would be equally drastic.
Realistically, if we don't want to pack all of humanity into tiny fractions of the earth's surface, we have to accept that almost everywhere people live is going to be subject to the occasional natural disaster. Yes, we should avoid the _worst_ areas and/or have contingency plans for those spots, but we're not going to be able to avoid everything.
>> Arguing that PC games give players too many configuration options (even if they choose to use them) is ridiculous.
>Never heard that one before, normally More Options = Good.
As someone who has worked in the game industry, both on PC and console games, the phobia about about giving the user too many options does exist, and it transcends the hardware the game is on.
For one of the PC games i was working on some decision was made about a certain relatively minor element of gameplay (unfortunately ten years on i've forgotten what exactly the element was.) It was a simple either/or decision, and couple of us on the team actual preferred to play the game the other way. So we talked to the lead designer about making it customizable in the options.
The short version of his response amounted to a fear that users would go into options and fiddle around with things and change this particular setting, then they would play the game and think it sucked (because of course he's chosen to go with the way he thought most people would enjoy, ergo...) but not realize it was because they changed the options. So instead of switching back to the other configuration they'd just think the game itself sucked.
I don't know how much of that was a reasonable argument, and how much was "i've decided what's best so everyone should play that way," but in fairness that guy has been lead designer for multiple best selling games, so clearly in general he knows what he's doing.
So the attitude that "too many options is bad for the user" is out there in the game industry (and the business software industry as well for that matter) and does have an effect on how games (and other software) are developed.
If one just goes by the image, iron is apparently no longer used in any tech at all. Can you short iron ore commodities? Or is that just for stocks?
"Yes the Nexus will be a little crisper, but not much more"
Uh, what? You think 33% greater density is "not much more"? According to Apple's own numbers the iPad's Retina Display only has 22% greater pixel density than the Nexus 7, and the MacBook Pro 13's Retina Display only has 5% greater pixel density.
So you're saying that 20% greater pixel density in a device that's much larger is a HUGE deal, but 33% greater pixel density in a device that's close to the same size doesn't really matter?
I'm comparing that particular aspect because Apple made such a big deal out of the "Retina Display" when they came out with it, and following that lead Apple fans always make a big deal out of how wonderful and beautiful the iPad's screen is. Apple is the one who decided to make pixel density a mainstay of their advertising campaign, so it kind of stick out like a sore thumb when they release a product that not only isn't "Retina Display" quality, but isn't even as good as the competition.
Of course if you really want to look at other factors, we could look at CPU. For quite awhile Apple has had inferior CPUs to the best Android devices, and that continues to be true here as well, 800 MHz -1 GHz dual core Apple A5 vs 1.3 GHz quad core Cortex-A9.
As for the size, maybe some people have made a big deal out of the larger Android phones, but personally i've never made any such claims. In fact i'm kind of concerned with the apparent arms race in screen sizes. I'm quite happy with the 3.7" screen on my Nexus One, and am a little worried about whether i'll be able to find a decent phone that fits comfortably in my pocket when i upgrade. And i'm a bit dubious about the claim that the iPad _Mini_ scores better than some other tablet because it's 0.9" larger. If that's true, shouldn't it be twice as much better if it was 1.8" larger? And three times as much better if it were 2.7" larger? And at that rate pretty soon you're back to regular iPad size. If the goal of the product is to be a smaller version, you're in a tough spot arguing that larger = better. 7" is too small, and 8" is too large, but 7.9" is just right? Why? Because Apple said so?
I've come to expect Apple to release hardware that is marginally better than their competitors at a pretty hefty markup. So let's compare...
iPad mini: 7.9" screen + 1024x768 resolution = 163 PPI. Price = $330 - $530 depending on storage size.
Nexus 7: 7" screen + 1280x800 resolution = 216 PPI. Price = $200-$250.
So for $80 more than the Nexus 7 version with the same amount of storage (16GB: $330 iPad mini, $250 Nexus 7) you get a 0.9" larger screen but significantly worse pixel density. And this is of course before the 32GB Nexus 7 announcement next week. The rumor is that the 32GB version will be $250 and the other models will drop in price. If so that means at the 32GB level you'll have to pay $180 more to get an iPad mini with worse resolution.
So that would be #4. As i said, i have no idea which happened first, i haven't done the research. But if Samsung decided to sell their screens elsewhere instead of to Apple, then of course Apple would start finding replacement manufacturers. And then Apple would have even more reason to sue Samsung (all the same "positive" reasons they had before, but less risk of significantly reducing their supply chain.)
1: Apple and Samsung get involved in lawsuits.
2: Apple decides to reduce orders from Samsung and order from competitors.
3: Apple demands lower prices for components.
4: Samsung decides to reduce the supply available to Apple.
It sounds like all of those have been gradually happening to a greater and greater degree over time. I don't know which particular item happened first, but once the cycle started it just kept on escalating. The smaller the size of the order by Apple (either in terms of number of components or price per component) the less valuable the contract becomes, and the more Samsung is going to focus on finding alternatives to sell to. The smaller the number of units Samsung makes available to Apple and the less they're willing to budge on price, the more Apple is going to focus on finding alternatives to buy from. The less dependent each of them get on each other, the more the gloves come off in the courtroom. The more lawsuits that get filled, the less comfortable both of them are going to feel about depending on the other to sell/buy components to/from.
How will this ruling affect earthquake predictions from this point on?
"Scientists predicted that sometime this week a massive earthquake will cause all of Italy to break off and fall into the ocean, killing everyone. This marks the 27th week in a row that scientists have made that prediction. When asked about the failure of the previous 26 predictions to come true a lead scientist replied 'It's always possible we're in error and the earthquake might be a little smaller, and might not kill everyone, and possibly might not happen at all. But better safe than sorry. We're sticking with our prediction, so don't say we didn't warn you.'"
Windows 7 is a pretty decent OS, and you can make it look just like XP or earlier if you want. And hopefully by the time they stop supporting Windows 7 they'll have come out with something decent for Windows 9, or the PC will be totally irrelevant.
"Also, you cannot just go into public lands and take a fencepost because you think it'd make a nice addition to your yard."
Wait, what?!? Damnit! What kind of legal precedent does that set in regards to my plan to go harvest space fenceposts?
On a more serious note, i did really like James P Hogan's "Voyage From Yesteryear." Before reading it i'd always had the impression that Communism sounded like a nice idea but had serious issues on a large scale. I felt the book put forward a completely believable scenario for a stable Anarcho-Libertarian-Communist society. All you need to achieve it is get some advanced tech, and then burn the current social system down to the ground and destroying the very roots of the culture itself.
I'm not sure if it was more heartening for convincing me that something resembling utopia is actually possible, or disheartening for convincing me it's something we'll never achieve on this planet unless we go through an incredible amount of pain and suffering first.
"after the TV character who cobbled together devices to escape life-threatening situations"
We've reached the point where we now have to explain who MacGyver is when he's referenced? Damn i feel old =P
Uh, that makes sense if there are large fragments that are broken up by damage. But if there's only 0.098% of the DNA left intact, it's not a question of where it broke, it's a question of where it didn't break. You're talking little bits that survived amidst > 99% decay.
No, the time range does not work. If the study is correct then a 5,210 year old DNA sample (which is _way_ too young for a Neanderthal) would already have gone through ten half-lives, so 1/(2^10) of the DNA would still be intact, or about 0.098% of it.
You're correct that dinosaurs and Neanderthal existed on completely different time scales, but you're completely ignoring that the claims made by this paper would make getting DNA samples impossible for _both_ of them.