If anything, this code tells me that whoever wrote it was very careful not to use bad data. Why else would you mark the modification with a three line comment with big letters and double exclamation marks pointing out that the following lines are artificial? The only time I write comments like that is when I want to make sure nobody accidentally compiles the code with it still in there.
This is the opposite of what I would expect from someone in a conspiracy.
But the premise of this whole debacle is that people are not given a choice of browser when they install an OS, and that is the reason that IE has such a large market share (since it's installed by default).
The choice has always been there, albeit more complicated to make. The issue has been that Microsoft has promoted their browser through their operating system monopoly, leading to unfair competition, not that people haven't been given a choice per se.
I personally don't think it is a big issue whether the ballot should be random or not. It sounds more like they are quibbling about details. But if the goal is to remove the leverage MS has through controlling the operating system, I'd say a random ballot ought to be more "fair" than letting MS pick the order. Sure, those who don't care will get a random browser, but why should MS be given the advantage of getting (more of) those users?
Yes, who thinks it is fine that China fires up three new dirty coal plants every day? I don't know, because I have never met or seen that person. Except possibly among the Chinese, but are insinuating that it is someone else.
I hear what you are saying. But at the same time I hear China and others pointing out that historically the west has released much more carbon, that they release less per capita and that the west have much greater capabilities for transforming their societies. I'm not saying that they are right, but they do have a point. So for them you are the one that don't want the same standards.
The question is, what standards should we have? Hence my conclusion: During the following years we will be given the choice between cooperating and working out our differences, or being overly protective and quibble until we are all doomed.
Also I'm not sure why you would need to limit carbon emissions using taxes. Cap and trade seems like a much more efficient and fair method, and it also what the EU employs. It could be implemented on a global scale if the willingness was there.
Every time I read something like this, I'm getting even more convinced that the following decades will define us as human beings. We can either work together globally, people from every culture and every nation, and unite to solve one of the greatest challenges our civilization has faced, or we can make it into a struggle about power and greed, fighting and distrusting others on our way into mutual disaster.
I think it is unfortunate that westerners in general, and Americans in particular, habitually see enemies wherever they look. I guess it comes with being a superpower, but I fear it will become the primary factor contributing to the eventual downfall of western dominance.
Obviously it doesn't happen by itself, if we just sit back and don't lift a finger. But that is to underestimate mankind and to deny our responsibility for the environment. It's exactly the same thing with preventing over-fishing, reducing toxic waste and so on. We can handle it if we choose to. So my point was that it doesn't have to lead to economic meltdown, as the summary says must, unless we let it.
If a kettle takes half as much electricity to boil water than it did before, you can boil twice as much water with the same electricity right? You end up using more hot water for other purposes? Like more tea.
Or you can continue to boil the same amount of water and reduce carbon emissions without reducing your standard of living.
I must say I find the summary somewhat contradictory: Higher efficiency is said to spur the economy, at the same time it says that "that rising carbon dioxide emissions cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses". If higher efficiency spurs the economy, then there must be room for reducing energy use without an economic collapse.
While I agree that going through all that just to correct a minor error is (unnecessarily?) complicated, saying that Wikipedia "sucks" is taking it a bit far. In that case, name one web page that does not suck. At least it is possible to contribute to Wikipedia, even though you may have to deal with others and be prepared to engage in discussions.
I don't know what expectations people have, but it seems a lot of people expect to be mouth-fed a perfect service that "someone else" should set up for them for free. Sure, it's unfortunate that it isn't always easy to contribute to Wikipedia, and it may very well have use for better management (I wouldn't know -- I haven't personally had much experience with bad editors that some are complaining about), but I still find it pretty impressive that it is able to work at the level it is. It certainly doesn't suck.
You may not like the fact, but if you pick a random PhD from a university, as a matter of statistics he or she will probably more intelligent than you (where intelligent means able to understand abstract subjects). That doesn't make the person better than you, and it doesn't make you a moron, but it is nevertheless a fact. The same person has probably spent most of his or her adult life only trying to understand one single narrow subject, in an environment where they are surrounded by some of the best available teachers and experts.
If anything is hubris, it is thinking that you as a lay person without relevant education, after reading a few articles or whatever will be able to engage in any meaningful debate with these people regarding their research. Even if you were the smartest person alive, this would be impossible.
Analogously: Would you try to argue with Tiger Woods on what the best way to practice a golf swing is, if you have never played golf? I certainly wouldn't, not because I am a moron, but rather because I'm not.
The pro-AGW crowd has many people who would like to see Western society's materialistic, high-energy-use lifestyle forcibly curbed, and AGW provides a convenient club.
With or without convenient clubs, our materialistic lifestyle is going to be curbed eventually. Take a look at the use of pretty much any natural resource and you'll see an exponential curve. This is impossible to sustain for any long period of time. Even if we don't stop burning oil because of global warming, we're simply going to run out of oil, albeit maybe a few decades later.
Yeah, I noticed the typo a minute after I submitted. And the thing is, I hate such idiotic errors as much as the next Slashdot reader. Guess I'm gonna have to blame it on English not being my native language or something.;-P
Indeed, some people certainly are abusing the system. I suppose the issue is to find balance where these are as few as possible without too high risk of legitimate patients losing benefits.
I think this might be trickier with private insurance companies than government funded benefits, given the strong economical incentives not to be perfectly candid in the former case.
I am not an expert, but what I think happens today is that the beneficiary would file a civil action suit against the insurance company. The court would then hear whatever witnesses the two parties call and pass a layman's decision (from a medical standpoint, that is).
Unfortunately, a person that really is ill doesn't necessarily have the stamina to go through a trial, or the financial resources to risk losing.
I think you are misrepresenting left-wing ideology, but I'm sure someone else can give you a better response to that than I since I don't consider myself particularly left oriented.
Regardless, the emission trading being implemented in Europe is designed to limit our freedoms as little as possible and focuses right on the problem. Cap the total emission levels and let people trade with certificates (using the market handle allocation and costs). You can still drive your huge car, but if it emits a lot of fossilized carbon you'll pay for it accordingly (indirectly through the petrol cost). Run it on electricity and you pay nothing.
The government has no control at all other than setting the cap, which is exactly the one thing we should decide democratically.
The only problem is they set the initial cap so high above the actual emission levels that the price for carbon emissions dropped to zero.
No, I'm not saying the environment is mine. I'm saying it is ours.
By your logic, it would be ok for me to for example dump toxic waste in a river. Hey, it's my environment as well! Why are we not dumping toxic waste? That's right, because it would be incredibly stupid. It makes no difference if one person does it, but if everyone uses the same logic we are all dead.
As long as we share the environment I am going to insist that we find rules to use it on equal terms without destroying it.
If you live in a society what you do affects others, and you're going to have to adapt to some degree. Deal with it.
Yes, doctors have licenses. But that doesn't make them perfect. They are not even objective. Medicine is a complex science that involves lots of intuition and judgement based on experience. Take a hundred thousand doctors and an insurance company will easily find someone agreeing with them. Especially if they give him a good salary.
In theory, you could try to revoke the license of these doctors, but that isn't going to be easy. And nor should it. How are you going to prove malpractice if all he/she did was to advice an insurance company? Because their "best judgement" wasn't accurate enough? Because they were paid by an insurance company?
The bottom line is the insurance company shouldn't be allowed to choose which doctor arbitrates the case. If they can, they will cherrypick one.
Or because they love the sense of control that comes from telling people what they can do, what kinds of cars they can drive (ever wonder why we don't have station wagons any more?), while being blissfully hypocritical about the whole thing.
Yeah, it's easy to put stupid ideas into your opponents mouth and attack them.
You can drive whatever car you like for all I care. But you better compensate the rest of us if you damage our mutual environment. That has nothing to do with control and all to do with common sense. Unfortunate as it may be, this world isn't big enough for everyone to do as they please. Had we been 10 million humans we probably could, but now we are 6.8 billion.
As for Al Gore, he hasn't been relevant over here. Except indirectly in being "the guy that opened the eyes of many Americans". If he makes money out of it, good for him. I can only hope he puts them to good use.
It's evident there is a 'leftwards' lean in a large part (if not the majority) of the subscribers of this site.
It sounds like you are suggesting that global warming is a matter of opinion. Why would people on the left want there to be global warming? If there were any compelling arguments against global warming I would celebrate (you would probably call me a leftie -- I am European).
It is also interesting that in almost all of the world, this issue doesn't have the political dimension it seems to have in the USA. Parties are discussing how to deal with global warming. The right wing generally wants do to slightly less, the left and greens more. But they all agree that this is a reality we need to do something about.
There have been several cases in Sweden were the insurance companies have been spying on the beneficiaries video taping them, then hired a doctor to claim that the person is healthy. The problem is, there are many doctors, and you can always find one that will disagree with the first one.
If what you are suggesting is going to work, you would at least need some formalized appeals process, perhaps with government hired doctors from every medical field, that can review the cases from a neutral point of view.
Exactly. The only effect this is going to have is that depressed people stay at home, never go to parties or beaches and make sure never to smile where they could be seen (in Sweden we have even had cases were insurance companies even hired private investigators hiding in the bushes with cameras). How is that for being counter-productive? One would think the insurance company would be interested in the person recovering. Isn't it a good thing she gets out in positive environments and tries to enjoy herself?
Considering about 15 cents/KWh energy, that's 1.5 cent/hour you save. [...] Now consider some 4 cents/KWh of energy a massive bulk customer like the solar panel factory pays
I just checked these numbers. They are quite accurate, but interestingly, the difference is made up of almost entirely of taxes. The power company adds less than 10% to the spot price, so bulk seems to have little to do with it.
In my case the price is 9.33 euro cents per kWh. This is made up of:
Spot price: 3.81 cents (41%)
Added by the power company: 0.35 cents (3.7%)
Taxes and certificates: 5.17 cents (55%)
When buying in bulk, the interesting figure is the spot price. Where I live, electricity is traded on a public exchange (Nordpool), so you can easily check the price per MWh at any time.
You see, this is what I call hand waving. How can you say the laser is going to shoot down a plane if you don't even have an idea of the laser's specification!?
The problem isn't that I haven't connected all the dots; the problem is that you don't understand the principles well enough to see that I have.
Let's be concrete. Some of the dots I'm missing are:
What is the power output of the laser?
For how long can the laser pulse be sustained?
How stationary can you keep the spot of the laser?
What level of heat transfer and heat capacity can you achieve in the surface?
What happens when/if the surface material evaporates? Does the gas absorb or disperse any of the energy?
If the reflective surface is polluted with dirt, how much heat will the dirt transmit to the surface before evaporating?
Does the reflectivity change somehow under extremely intense lighting (due to depletion of surface electrons or whatever other imaginable reason)? (High energy laser knowledge could be useful here.)
And finally, what reflectivity is actually reasonable to achieve? These kinds of chemical laser have wave lengths in the order of a few microns. In this range even very thin layers of gold plating have very good reflectivity (> 98%). Gold also doesn't corrode and it transfers heat well. On the other hand, the surface would not be perfectly clean, as you have pointed out.
Now, we know that the laser evidently can destroy an aircraft with "normal" reflectivity at some distance. What we don't know is: With how large a margin? Perhaps a twice as reflective surface would be able to maintain the heat transfer induced by the laser without melting or evaporating. I'm guessing probably not, but that is just a guess.
I don't think this is such an obviously simple problem, but if you do I'd happily be educated. (Preferably with numbers.)
4) "shouldn't be hard to substantiate (other than giving numbers on mirror reflectivity)"? The hell you say? If 2 plus 2 is obviously 4, then you should be able to prove it easily without using integers.
Sure. If you like I can roll out the full proof using the Peano axioms.
Wrong, but I'm not getting drawn in to repeating all that I've said just because you're going to pretend you didn't see it.
That would be the hand waving part. I did see it.
"I couldn't care less whether this weapon works against reflective aircraft"
Then why are you commenting in a thread discussing whether this weapon could be defeated by making reflective aircraft?
Clever riposte, I've got to give you that. But just because I'm indifferent to what the answer will be, it doesn't mean I'm not interested in the answer. That is, I'm not "busy wanting" it to work, as you said.
So your argument boils down to: "The mirror will absorb 5%. QED." There is a gap in the middle, save for some hand waving.
Less importantly, I couldn't care less whether this weapon works against reflective aircraft or not. It would be interesting to know, but this discussion hasn't helped much.
Slashdot Mirror
If anything, this code tells me that whoever wrote it was very careful not to use bad data. Why else would you mark the modification with a three line comment with big letters and double exclamation marks pointing out that the following lines are artificial? The only time I write comments like that is when I want to make sure nobody accidentally compiles the code with it still in there.
This is the opposite of what I would expect from someone in a conspiracy.
The choice has always been there, albeit more complicated to make. The issue has been that Microsoft has promoted their browser through their operating system monopoly, leading to unfair competition, not that people haven't been given a choice per se.
I personally don't think it is a big issue whether the ballot should be random or not. It sounds more like they are quibbling about details. But if the goal is to remove the leverage MS has through controlling the operating system, I'd say a random ballot ought to be more "fair" than letting MS pick the order. Sure, those who don't care will get a random browser, but why should MS be given the advantage of getting (more of) those users?
Yes, who thinks it is fine that China fires up three new dirty coal plants every day? I don't know, because I have never met or seen that person. Except possibly among the Chinese, but are insinuating that it is someone else.
I hear what you are saying. But at the same time I hear China and others pointing out that historically the west has released much more carbon, that they release less per capita and that the west have much greater capabilities for transforming their societies. I'm not saying that they are right, but they do have a point. So for them you are the one that don't want the same standards.
The question is, what standards should we have? Hence my conclusion: During the following years we will be given the choice between cooperating and working out our differences, or being overly protective and quibble until we are all doomed.
Also I'm not sure why you would need to limit carbon emissions using taxes. Cap and trade seems like a much more efficient and fair method, and it also what the EU employs. It could be implemented on a global scale if the willingness was there.
Every time I read something like this, I'm getting even more convinced that the following decades will define us as human beings. We can either work together globally, people from every culture and every nation, and unite to solve one of the greatest challenges our civilization has faced, or we can make it into a struggle about power and greed, fighting and distrusting others on our way into mutual disaster.
I think it is unfortunate that westerners in general, and Americans in particular, habitually see enemies wherever they look. I guess it comes with being a superpower, but I fear it will become the primary factor contributing to the eventual downfall of western dominance.
Obviously it doesn't happen by itself, if we just sit back and don't lift a finger. But that is to underestimate mankind and to deny our responsibility for the environment. It's exactly the same thing with preventing over-fishing, reducing toxic waste and so on. We can handle it if we choose to. So my point was that it doesn't have to lead to economic meltdown, as the summary says must, unless we let it.
Or you can continue to boil the same amount of water and reduce carbon emissions without reducing your standard of living.
I must say I find the summary somewhat contradictory: Higher efficiency is said to spur the economy, at the same time it says that "that rising carbon dioxide emissions cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses". If higher efficiency spurs the economy, then there must be room for reducing energy use without an economic collapse.
While I agree that going through all that just to correct a minor error is (unnecessarily?) complicated, saying that Wikipedia "sucks" is taking it a bit far. In that case, name one web page that does not suck. At least it is possible to contribute to Wikipedia, even though you may have to deal with others and be prepared to engage in discussions.
I don't know what expectations people have, but it seems a lot of people expect to be mouth-fed a perfect service that "someone else" should set up for them for free. Sure, it's unfortunate that it isn't always easy to contribute to Wikipedia, and it may very well have use for better management (I wouldn't know -- I haven't personally had much experience with bad editors that some are complaining about), but I still find it pretty impressive that it is able to work at the level it is. It certainly doesn't suck.
You may not like the fact, but if you pick a random PhD from a university, as a matter of statistics he or she will probably more intelligent than you (where intelligent means able to understand abstract subjects). That doesn't make the person better than you, and it doesn't make you a moron, but it is nevertheless a fact. The same person has probably spent most of his or her adult life only trying to understand one single narrow subject, in an environment where they are surrounded by some of the best available teachers and experts.
If anything is hubris, it is thinking that you as a lay person without relevant education, after reading a few articles or whatever will be able to engage in any meaningful debate with these people regarding their research. Even if you were the smartest person alive, this would be impossible.
Analogously: Would you try to argue with Tiger Woods on what the best way to practice a golf swing is, if you have never played golf? I certainly wouldn't, not because I am a moron, but rather because I'm not.
With or without convenient clubs, our materialistic lifestyle is going to be curbed eventually. Take a look at the use of pretty much any natural resource and you'll see an exponential curve. This is impossible to sustain for any long period of time. Even if we don't stop burning oil because of global warming, we're simply going to run out of oil, albeit maybe a few decades later.
Yeah, I noticed the typo a minute after I submitted. And the thing is, I hate such idiotic errors as much as the next Slashdot reader. Guess I'm gonna have to blame it on English not being my native language or something. ;-P
Indeed, some people certainly are abusing the system. I suppose the issue is to find balance where these are as few as possible without too high risk of legitimate patients losing benefits.
I think this might be trickier with private insurance companies than government funded benefits, given the strong economical incentives not to be perfectly candid in the former case.
I am not an expert, but what I think happens today is that the beneficiary would file a civil action suit against the insurance company. The court would then hear whatever witnesses the two parties call and pass a layman's decision (from a medical standpoint, that is).
Unfortunately, a person that really is ill doesn't necessarily have the stamina to go through a trial, or the financial resources to risk losing.
I think you are misrepresenting left-wing ideology, but I'm sure someone else can give you a better response to that than I since I don't consider myself particularly left oriented.
Regardless, the emission trading being implemented in Europe is designed to limit our freedoms as little as possible and focuses right on the problem. Cap the total emission levels and let people trade with certificates (using the market handle allocation and costs). You can still drive your huge car, but if it emits a lot of fossilized carbon you'll pay for it accordingly (indirectly through the petrol cost). Run it on electricity and you pay nothing.
The government has no control at all other than setting the cap, which is exactly the one thing we should decide democratically.
The only problem is they set the initial cap so high above the actual emission levels that the price for carbon emissions dropped to zero.
No, I'm not saying the environment is mine. I'm saying it is ours.
By your logic, it would be ok for me to for example dump toxic waste in a river. Hey, it's my environment as well! Why are we not dumping toxic waste? That's right, because it would be incredibly stupid. It makes no difference if one person does it, but if everyone uses the same logic we are all dead.
As long as we share the environment I am going to insist that we find rules to use it on equal terms without destroying it.
If you live in a society what you do affects others, and you're going to have to adapt to some degree. Deal with it.
Yes, doctors have licenses. But that doesn't make them perfect. They are not even objective. Medicine is a complex science that involves lots of intuition and judgement based on experience. Take a hundred thousand doctors and an insurance company will easily find someone agreeing with them. Especially if they give him a good salary.
In theory, you could try to revoke the license of these doctors, but that isn't going to be easy. And nor should it. How are you going to prove malpractice if all he/she did was to advice an insurance company? Because their "best judgement" wasn't accurate enough? Because they were paid by an insurance company?
The bottom line is the insurance company shouldn't be allowed to choose which doctor arbitrates the case. If they can, they will cherrypick one.
Yeah, it's easy to put stupid ideas into your opponents mouth and attack them.
You can drive whatever car you like for all I care. But you better compensate the rest of us if you damage our mutual environment. That has nothing to do with control and all to do with common sense. Unfortunate as it may be, this world isn't big enough for everyone to do as they please. Had we been 10 million humans we probably could, but now we are 6.8 billion.
As for Al Gore, he hasn't been relevant over here. Except indirectly in being "the guy that opened the eyes of many Americans". If he makes money out of it, good for him. I can only hope he puts them to good use.
It sounds like you are suggesting that global warming is a matter of opinion. Why would people on the left want there to be global warming? If there were any compelling arguments against global warming I would celebrate (you would probably call me a leftie -- I am European).
It is also interesting that in almost all of the world, this issue doesn't have the political dimension it seems to have in the USA. Parties are discussing how to deal with global warming. The right wing generally wants do to slightly less, the left and greens more. But they all agree that this is a reality we need to do something about.
But you getting better means they don't have to pay out any longer, so it is in there interest.
Of course, it's cheaper for them to claim you already are healthy if they can get away with it. That is why we shouldn't let them.
There have been several cases in Sweden were the insurance companies have been spying on the beneficiaries video taping them, then hired a doctor to claim that the person is healthy. The problem is, there are many doctors, and you can always find one that will disagree with the first one.
If what you are suggesting is going to work, you would at least need some formalized appeals process, perhaps with government hired doctors from every medical field, that can review the cases from a neutral point of view.
Exactly. The only effect this is going to have is that depressed people stay at home, never go to parties or beaches and make sure never to smile where they could be seen (in Sweden we have even had cases were insurance companies even hired private investigators hiding in the bushes with cameras). How is that for being counter-productive? One would think the insurance company would be interested in the person recovering. Isn't it a good thing she gets out in positive environments and tries to enjoy herself?
I just checked these numbers. They are quite accurate, but interestingly, the difference is made up of almost entirely of taxes. The power company adds less than 10% to the spot price, so bulk seems to have little to do with it.
In my case the price is 9.33 euro cents per kWh. This is made up of:
Spot price: 3.81 cents (41%)
Added by the power company: 0.35 cents (3.7%)
Taxes and certificates: 5.17 cents (55%)
When buying in bulk, the interesting figure is the spot price. Where I live, electricity is traded on a public exchange (Nordpool), so you can easily check the price per MWh at any time.
You see, this is what I call hand waving. How can you say the laser is going to shoot down a plane if you don't even have an idea of the laser's specification!?
Let's be concrete. Some of the dots I'm missing are:
Now, we know that the laser evidently can destroy an aircraft with "normal" reflectivity at some distance. What we don't know is: With how large a margin? Perhaps a twice as reflective surface would be able to maintain the heat transfer induced by the laser without melting or evaporating. I'm guessing probably not, but that is just a guess.
I don't think this is such an obviously simple problem, but if you do I'd happily be educated. (Preferably with numbers.)
Sure. If you like I can roll out the full proof using the Peano axioms.
That would be the hand waving part. I did see it.
Clever riposte, I've got to give you that. But just because I'm indifferent to what the answer will be, it doesn't mean I'm not interested in the answer. That is, I'm not "busy wanting" it to work, as you said.
So your argument boils down to: "The mirror will absorb 5%. QED." There is a gap in the middle, save for some hand waving.
Less importantly, I couldn't care less whether this weapon works against reflective aircraft or not. It would be interesting to know, but this discussion hasn't helped much.