On a roof, such cells would require less than half the surface area to produce the same amount of power as today's standard solar panels, which have an efficiency of about 17%."
OK, but how much of a typical house's power would that supply? (I realize this depends on location and time of year.)
Or how many panels would it take to give you a daily, full recharge of a plug-in hybrid in, say, Los Angeles? (Imagine that that would do for LA's smog.)
I haven't read the article, I haven't seen the site or the license they submitted.
But I know Microsoft. It's a trap. Either short-term, or long-term. Somehow, this is designed to ultimately restrict our freedoms or slow down the replacement of non-free software with free software.
You may call be bigoted, or a troll. I see my view on this particular issue as just highly conditioned from decades of experience.
This seems like yet another reason that first-to-file patents are a terrible idea. Such a system could mean that whenever we engage in a public brainstorming session like this, some a$$ho7E comes in patents any good ideas that get floated.
We shouldn't simply assume that just because the author used math, (and we like his conclusion, ) that his conclusions are accurate.
1. The author built a mathematical model of the world. 2. Then he performed (presumably) valid math within that model. 3. But generally, all models simplify, often over-simplify, the thing they describe. 4. So even if all his math is valid, his results may be inaccurate.
We also can't simply ignore the fact that the objective function he was trying to maximize embodies a particular notion of what "good" is. But we know that the idea of "good" varies from person to person, even amongst Slashdot'ers, in major ways. So just because we like the fact that he used math, and we like his advocacy of shorter copyright, we maybe should seriously disagree with his conclusion of "about 14 years" being optimal.
However, a group which aims to (1) keep church and state separate, and (2) demand scientific evidence be the foundation of government policies (where it is available), does not necessarily EVER have to apply the lens of science to the question of the validity of religions, because that would be at odds with their #1 goal.
But wouldn't you agree the sound policy ideally has two stages: (A) discover what's currently the state of affairs, and then (B) deciding what you want to accomplish and how to accomplish that goal?
I think the way we should do (A) is pretty uncontroversial (except within the Bush administration, which seems to have a serious problem with fact-based reasoning).
But (B) involves deciding what we want to accomplish, and includes what limitations we want to impose on ourselves in terms of how we accomplish it. That involves taking a stance on ethics, justice, and what is the "good" that we seek to accomplish with our policies. I just don't see how you can avoid having those details be logically informed by your take on religion.
So when a bunch of scientists advocates particular policies (i.e., (B)), it just sounds (maybe unintentionally) disingenuous for them to claim that they're keeping church and state separate, because it's basically impossible to do so (I think) for part (B). ESCR is a pretty decent example for this I think, because the two sides' of the debate are motivated by different ethical positions regarding the relative value of embryos vs. humans who have already been born. And that's definitely a non-scientific issue. No?
I want both Sony and MediaMax to suffer greatly. (It's ok for Sony to survive imho, but MediaMax should probably die and have its fields salted.)
But isn't this a bit like a bank robber who shoots a cop suing Smith and Wesson? E.g., it sounds like Sony knew (or should have known) exactly what it was putting on their CDs.
Empiricism (the philosophy that knowledge must be derived from evidence) is fundamental to science, and is in opposition to dogmatism (the fundamental philosophy supporting religion). Nevertheless, it is not the government's job to decide if any of the thousands of gods worshiped in human history are real.
Also, outside of the religious realm, even religious Americans, especially those that are educated, tend to be empirically minded.
I don't think that dogmatism is the only basis people have for a supernatural / religious world view. For example, there is some evidence for, and some evidence against, Jesus' resurrection.
The problem is that if it did occur, it was a miracle and therefore a historical one-off. It's not like we can do scientific experiments in the present day, figure that the world worked the same way 2000 years ago, and make iron-clad conclusions about the resurrection or lack thereof. I imagine there's just a limit to how much science can inform us about unique historical events, whether we're talking about Jesus' alleged resurrection or the big bang.
On the other hand, there are some kinds of evidence, other than scientific, for judging if allegedly historical events actually occurred. With the supposed resurrection of Jesus, we have written testimony from supposed eye-witnesses (much of the New Testament); the pretty undeniable rapid spread of the early church; and the present-day claims of many people regarding encounters with God. I'm not trying to say that that evidence is compelling. I'm just saying that it is evidence that you can consider, and to the extent that people come to religious conclusions because of that evidence, they're not being dogmatic.
Join Scientists and Engineers for America. They are "a non-profit organization dedicated to renewing respect for evidence-based debate and decision-making in politics and at all levels of government."
You're right to eschew the suppression of facts in policy debates. Only a villain or a moron would want to make plans without having a firm grasp on reality. I'm pretty convinced that Bush and his cohorts are elitists and anti-democratic: They don't think the public can be trusted with the truth, so they distort it to get their own ways.
Unfortunately, I've noticed that organizations like the one you're advocating tend to take things a bit beyond that. Specifically they seem to
... be committed to philosophical naturalism. This means they won't typically admit as evidence observations that seem contrary to their naturalistic world view, and consider if wrong for any policy planning to do so. As you might imagine, to theists and other supernaturalists, that view is excessive and leads to other classes of policy errors. (Hmmm... I'm having trouble thinking of an example of this, though. Anyone?)
... smuggle metaphysics into their positions without realizing or admitting it. For example, there's not really that much debate about the science of embryonic stem cell therapy, aside from perhaps it's therapeutic potential compared to other forms of stem cell therapy (cord blood, etc.) But researchers are often outraged that politicians interfere with their science, because (I think) they judge the pursuit of the science to be the greater good.
That's a metaphysical and ethical judgment, and while value-based judgments should be based on accurate understandings of science, the pro- and anti-ESCR folks often agree on the science, just not the ethics.
Today I woke up and had some coffee. It was gross - they used that artificial creamer that they get cheap from SysCo. Took a shower. Nothing eventful. I'm getting back hair in new places. Yuck. Decided that in depth articles SUCK! OK, time for breakfast - I think I'll have a bagel.
Comments: 1) By HoosierFan2006, 6:40 a.m.: I just wish my hair would come back! LOL!
2) By Canonball25532, 6:51 a.m.: No, in depth articles rock. You're an idiot.
3) By CatLover, 6:53 a.m.: Anyone know where I can get a discount air conditioner? It's *hot* this week!
Having a deterrent is pretty pointless unless everyone knows that you have it.
You'd think that, but Israel has actually had a policy for a long time of neither confirming nor denying nukes. IIRC, this lets them scare their neighbors, but (amazingly) keeps the UN non-proliferation folks at bay.
His offer is that if the recording industry will give up some of their own free-speech rights, the government will reward them by curtailing citizens' free-speech rights?
IT was never exempt from communication, as IT is all ABOUT communication. Learning to dress usually means adhering to an arbitarily strict dress code that interferes with the nature of IT work to begin with.
I think a dress-code works for some techies, although maybe not those who need to crawl around on the floor.
I've done a lot of telecommuting lately, and I've noticed that I'm more in a work-related mindset if I at least put on long pants and a long shirt. I think maybe the key is that I don't normally dress like that when I'm not working, so it's a little reminder to myself that I'm on the job.
Maybe it's like that in offices, too. Maybe the execs apply the same principle of "When at work, dress like you're at work because it helps you keep your head in the job a little better." (Although they also have social and salesmanship needs to dress the part, which techies don't have.) The problem is that they don't realize all of the bad symbolic baggage wearing a suit to work carries for real techies?
Slashdot Mirror
OK, but how much of a typical house's power would that supply? (I realize this depends on location and time of year.)
Or how many panels would it take to give you a daily, full recharge of a plug-in hybrid in, say, Los Angeles? (Imagine that that would do for LA's smog.)
This is such a stupid celebration. Like anyone has ever seen a Happy System Administrator.
Oh, wait. I see how you meant that. Uhhh... Happy Sys Admin day to you too. (Ah crap - there goes my beeper.) DAMMIT!
Now people won't value my hard-earned Linksys Network Engineer certificate...
I haven't read the article, I haven't seen the site or the license they submitted.
But I know Microsoft. It's a trap. Either short-term, or long-term. Somehow, this is designed to ultimately restrict our freedoms or slow down the replacement of non-free software with free software.
You may call be bigoted, or a troll. I see my view on this particular issue as just highly conditioned from decades of experience.
You're thinking of a "first-to-invent" system. Here's the difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_fir st_to_invent
This seems like yet another reason that first-to-file patents are a terrible idea. Such a system could mean that whenever we engage in a public brainstorming session like this, some a$$ho7E comes in patents any good ideas that get floated.
Superior??? I've heard he uses vi.
This is a bit like hoping that the president of North Korea has qualified nuclear physicists on staff.
Gaahhh! How do I outbid the current price of $XCCCX921 ???
Can anyone find a link to source code for this?
Just kidding. Made you look! ;)
No, no. These aren't the droids I'm looking for.
IMHO the term "robotic" implies some kind of autonomy. Don't these drones more qualify as really cool, but terrifying, RC planes?
It's only a fire sale when Sony is selling laptop batteries.
We shouldn't simply assume that just because the author used math, (and we like his conclusion, ) that his conclusions are accurate.
1. The author built a mathematical model of the world.
2. Then he performed (presumably) valid math within that model.
3. But generally, all models simplify, often over-simplify, the thing they describe.
4. So even if all his math is valid, his results may be inaccurate.
We also can't simply ignore the fact that the objective function he was trying to maximize embodies a particular notion of what "good" is. But we know that the idea of "good" varies from person to person, even amongst Slashdot'ers, in major ways. So just because we like the fact that he used math, and we like his advocacy of shorter copyright, we maybe should seriously disagree with his conclusion of "about 14 years" being optimal.
But wouldn't you agree the sound policy ideally has two stages: (A) discover what's currently the state of affairs, and then (B) deciding what you want to accomplish and how to accomplish that goal?
I think the way we should do (A) is pretty uncontroversial (except within the Bush administration, which seems to have a serious problem with fact-based reasoning).
But (B) involves deciding what we want to accomplish, and includes what limitations we want to impose on ourselves in terms of how we accomplish it. That involves taking a stance on ethics, justice, and what is the "good" that we seek to accomplish with our policies. I just don't see how you can avoid having those details be logically informed by your take on religion.
So when a bunch of scientists advocates particular policies (i.e., (B)), it just sounds (maybe unintentionally) disingenuous for them to claim that they're keeping church and state separate, because it's basically impossible to do so (I think) for part (B). ESCR is a pretty decent example for this I think, because the two sides' of the debate are motivated by different ethical positions regarding the relative value of embryos vs. humans who have already been born. And that's definitely a non-scientific issue. No?
I want both Sony and MediaMax to suffer greatly. (It's ok for Sony to survive imho, but MediaMax should probably die and have its fields salted.)
But isn't this a bit like a bank robber who shoots a cop suing Smith and Wesson? E.g., it sounds like Sony knew (or should have known) exactly what it was putting on their CDs.
I don't think that dogmatism is the only basis people have for a supernatural / religious world view. For example, there is some evidence for, and some evidence against, Jesus' resurrection.
The problem is that if it did occur, it was a miracle and therefore a historical one-off. It's not like we can do scientific experiments in the present day, figure that the world worked the same way 2000 years ago, and make iron-clad conclusions about the resurrection or lack thereof. I imagine there's just a limit to how much science can inform us about unique historical events, whether we're talking about Jesus' alleged resurrection or the big bang.
On the other hand, there are some kinds of evidence, other than scientific, for judging if allegedly historical events actually occurred. With the supposed resurrection of Jesus, we have written testimony from supposed eye-witnesses (much of the New Testament); the pretty undeniable rapid spread of the early church; and the present-day claims of many people regarding encounters with God. I'm not trying to say that that evidence is compelling. I'm just saying that it is evidence that you can consider, and to the extent that people come to religious conclusions because of that evidence, they're not being dogmatic.
Thoughts?
You're right to eschew the suppression of facts in policy debates. Only a villain or a moron would want to make plans without having a firm grasp on reality. I'm pretty convinced that Bush and his cohorts are elitists and anti-democratic: They don't think the public can be trusted with the truth, so they distort it to get their own ways.
Unfortunately, I've noticed that organizations like the one you're advocating tend to take things a bit beyond that. Specifically they seem to
... be committed to philosophical naturalism. This means they won't typically admit as evidence observations that seem contrary to their naturalistic world view, and consider if wrong for any policy planning to do so. As you might imagine, to theists and other supernaturalists, that view is excessive and leads to other classes of policy errors. (Hmmm... I'm having trouble thinking of an example of this, though. Anyone?)
... smuggle metaphysics into their positions without realizing or admitting it. For example, there's not really that much debate about the science of embryonic stem cell therapy, aside from perhaps it's therapeutic potential compared to other forms of stem cell therapy (cord blood, etc.) But researchers are often outraged that politicians interfere with their science, because (I think) they judge the pursuit of the science to be the greater good.
That's a metaphysical and ethical judgment, and while value-based judgments should be based on accurate understandings of science, the pro- and anti-ESCR folks often agree on the science, just not the ethics.
After what Beaker was put though in the Muppets, I'm just not ready to call Jim Henson is a serious friend of science.
Posted by DoofusOfDeath, 6:24 a.m:
Today I woke up and had some coffee. It was gross - they used that artificial creamer that they get cheap from SysCo.
Took a shower. Nothing eventful. I'm getting back hair in new places. Yuck.
Decided that in depth articles SUCK!
OK, time for breakfast - I think I'll have a bagel.
Comments:
1) By HoosierFan2006, 6:40 a.m.:
I just wish my hair would come back! LOL!
2) By Canonball25532, 6:51 a.m.:
No, in depth articles rock. You're an idiot.
3) By CatLover, 6:53 a.m.:
Anyone know where I can get a discount air conditioner? It's *hot* this week!
You'd think that, but Israel has actually had a policy for a long time of neither confirming nor denying nukes. IIRC, this lets them scare their neighbors, but (amazingly) keeps the UN non-proliferation folks at bay.
His offer is that if the recording industry will give up some of their own free-speech rights, the government will reward them by curtailing citizens' free-speech rights?
I think a dress-code works for some techies, although maybe not those who need to crawl around on the floor.
I've done a lot of telecommuting lately, and I've noticed that I'm more in a work-related mindset if I at least put on long pants and a long shirt. I think maybe the key is that I don't normally dress like that when I'm not working, so it's a little reminder to myself that I'm on the job.
Maybe it's like that in offices, too. Maybe the execs apply the same principle of "When at work, dress like you're at work because it helps you keep your head in the job a little better." (Although they also have social and salesmanship needs to dress the part, which techies don't have.) The problem is that they don't realize all of the bad symbolic baggage wearing a suit to work carries for real techies?
I'd give a lot to see that smug "Can you hear me now?" guy walk into one of those buildings.