×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Ubisoft Points Finger At AMD For Assassin's Creed Unity Poor Performance

TsuruchiBrian Re:A highly relevant comment from the previous pos (262 comments)

It's not like anything over 50 fps is equally amazingly awesome. 50fps is just ok. Getting 100fps instead of 50 fps is a vast improvement.

Also, you're experience is just 1 sample. Maybe that one game you have didn't do a good job of using the Mantle API.

about two weeks ago
top

Assassin's Creed: Unity Launch Debacle Pulls Spotlight Onto Game Review Embargos

TsuruchiBrian Re:Nvidia to blame (473 comments)

I guess AMD's continuous loss making failure to provide any reasonable competition to nvidia by actually churning out good hardware with non-shit drivers is pushing it to desperate measure

citation please

Anonymous Coward

Identity please

about two weeks ago
top

Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

TsuruchiBrian Re:History is written by the victors (495 comments)

First of all, you replied to my comment, not the other way around. Secondly the definite endgame of species gradually going extinct due to the sun burning out is just the example of the final gradual reduction in *all* the niches on earth.

This statement does not imply that we can't lose our compatible niches earlier. What I am saying is that losing your niche *can* (and usually does) happen slowly, or alternatively It's not true that *all* extinctions *must* be abrupt.

about three weeks ago
top

Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

TsuruchiBrian Re:History is written by the victors (495 comments)

That seems unlikely

Is 500 million years too fast for you?

there is no plausible scenario by which climate change will produce such an outcome,

I don't think our current fossil fuel usage will, but having all the oceans boil away due to increased solar output is certainly a change in climate.

and the IPCC report (representing the best available analysis) doesn't outline any such scenario.

That's because the IPCC's definition of "long term" is on the scale of hundreds of years, and what I am talking about is on a longer timescale. It's not the IPCC, but rather geologists and astronomers that would the the sources of the information I am talking about.

about a month ago
top

Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

TsuruchiBrian Re:History is written by the victors (495 comments)

I don't think I need to explain that. If you don't understand what I mean by it, you have to read up a bit on those cultures and their history yourself.

My point was that we don't know if populations are stable on such short timescales as we are used to. Pretty much every population, except the most dire examples of endangered species are not noticeably going extinct even if they are/will. Most species that ever existed have gone extinct, and most had very long periods of decline that preceded their ultimate extinction. Evolution is slow. Extinction is slow. Extinction is feature of evolution.

Right now, there is no indication of a human population decline, nor of a human population explosion; the human population is stabilizing.

We are growing in population. There is no current indication of population decline. I never said there was. All I am saying is that when we do start the process of extinct, it may not be obvious that it is happening.

If climate change were to cause human populations to decline, the cause would be a reduction in carrying capacity. Human populations would simply decline until they match the new carrying capacity; they don't continue to decline magically beyond that.

And if the carrying capacity declines gradually until it's 0 (for humans), then that's what human populations will do. And in fact this is what is *going* to happen on earth in ~ billion years when the sun turns into a red giant. All the water on earth will slowly (over the course of another ~500 million years) evaporate into space, as the sun gradually increases it's intensity as it evolves from a subgiant to a red giant.

The only way humans could go extinct is if there were no significant ecological niche where we can survive, and that just isn't going to happen.

If we haven't gone extinct earlier, or found a new home beyond our area of the solar system, we are guaranteed to go extinct very slowly along with every other species still on earth. All our niches are going to *slowly* disappear. There are probably going to be new species created on earth during that 500 million year process that are basically doomed to slow but inevitable extinction.

about a month ago
top

Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

TsuruchiBrian Re:History is written by the victors (495 comments)

If a *rate* of growth is declining, a population can still be growing. A population growth of 1.2% is still positive exponential growth.

Two thirds of that is from immigration.

So what?

So our local growth is 0.4% and falling.

0.4% growth is still growth. (i.e. the population is growing)

If current trends continue we will have negative local growth in a few decades.

If you assume the trend is linear, real canada (i.e. non-immigrant canada) will be extinct in ~1000 years.

Immigration will keep us steady only as long as undeveloped countries stay undeveloped. :)

I don't think there is any reason to think that's true in the long term, for the same reason it's not true that underdeveloped countries will continue their positive exponential rate of growth even when they become developed.

I've seen lots of projections like "If these trends continue, then the united states will be 99.7% mexican by 2130". And I think the error here is to assume that trends continue indefinitely and that they are linear.

about a month ago
top

Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

TsuruchiBrian Re:History is written by the victors (495 comments)

Meaning they have been long term stable populations.

What do you mean by long term? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? 1 million years?

If they have a population of 100,000, but they have a net loss of 1 person every year (e.g. pretty "stable"), they will be extinct in 100,000 years.

Extinctions can't happen slowly; they happen when a small remaining population gets wiped out entirely. That's a nearly instantaneous event.

Yeah the last individual of a species to die is an instantaneous event. And if you only want to count that last instantaneous event as "the extinction", then yes extinctions are instantaneous. Phrases like "going extinct" will be incoherent.

Population decline can happen slowly, but population decline is not a sign of extinction.

I didn't say it was. But still it is a "sign" in that a population with less individuals is more at risk for extinction than a population with more individuals, all else being equal.

Humans have bounced back from a worldwide population of 10000, and previous primates have been subject to even worse bottlenecks.

So if a species bounces back from a 2 individual bottleneck or a 1 individual bottleneck (for asexual species), then should we say the extinction only begins once the situation is worse than the worst historical bottleneck?

If human beings go extinct gradually losing population over the next 100,000 years until we get to 10,000 people, and then the last 10,000 people get wiped out in 2 or 3 generations, when someone (an alien?) asks "Why did human's go extinct?" Will this person be asking "Why did the last 10,000 humans go extinct?" or will it be asking "What caused the human population to decline to the point of no return?"

about a month ago
top

Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

TsuruchiBrian Re:History is written by the victors (495 comments)

And how "inhospitable" would that be? Both Eskimos and Berber are doing fine.

It depends what you mean by doing fine. Is their birth:death ratio greater than 1:1? If not, then maybe they are not doing fine. If the whole world were as inhospitable as the arctic, it's very possible that that is enough to do us in over a long period of time.

And climate change doesn't destroy climate globally anyway, it just changes it around. We'll likely end up with more arable land overall long term under the most severe climate change scenarios, even if the transition is more disruptive.

I didn't say climate change destroys the climate.

Actually, we already have effectively reached that point, and not through material privation, but rather development. Developed nations tend to stop having population growth.

Populations in most developed countries are still growing, they just experience slower growth than underdeveloped countries.

All I am saying, is that extinctions can happen really slowly. IF we do go extinct, it may not be noticeable. I am not saying that we are going extinct now.

about a month ago
top

Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

TsuruchiBrian Re:History is written by the victors (495 comments)

I'm not saying that every gradual fall off in population is like an extinction. I'm saying most extinctions are a gradual fall off. If/when we go extinct, it will probably be a gradual fall off.

And yes many trends of these sorts are self correcting, but keep in mind the vast majority of species on this planet have gone extinct. They likely had self correcting trends as well.... until they didn't.

about a month ago
top

Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

TsuruchiBrian Re:History is written by the victors (495 comments)

Extinctions usually happen slowly. If we do one day go extinct slowly (e.g. not via an asteroid collision, etc), and you draw the trend line all the way back to when our population started declining (smoothing out short and medium term fluctuations), it is likely that the people at the start of that trend will not know they were going extinct.

about a month ago
top

Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

TsuruchiBrian Re:Ah, those pesky denialists! (495 comments)

Can't we just shoot these doubt-mongering denialists

You sure can. Guns are readily accessible. Unfortunately we have to put murderers in prison, but if you want to take one for the team, go right ahead. You seem not to have the moral compass that would prevent most non-sociopaths from saving the world in the way you suggest. That is a rare skill. How do you think you'd do in prison? Do you have any gang or shank making experience?

about a month ago
top

Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

TsuruchiBrian Re:Labelling problem (495 comments)

You can be 2 things. Batman is a scientist and a detective.

about a month ago
top

Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

TsuruchiBrian Re:Scientists failed us? (495 comments)

It wasn't even all the scientists that were at fault. It was one particular scientist. Isaac Newton. Not only did he not do anything to warn us, he was completely ignorant of the imminent climate change that was to come, and did nothing to learn more about the problem that was to exist.

about a month ago
top

Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

TsuruchiBrian Re: I'm sick of this shit. (495 comments)

I'm not sure there exists a scientific solution to get dumb people to stop voting for dumb politicians. At least not a "political" one.

about a month ago
top

Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

TsuruchiBrian Re:History is written by the victors (495 comments)

The mass (near) extinction of humans need not be noticeable. All that is required is that the environment become inhospitable enough to humans to cause the birth:death ratio to drop below 1. Given that currently everyone still dies, this simply means that people stop producing at least 1 child per parent (e.g. 2 kids per hetero-normative couple) that survives and produces more children.

This could mean people start dying of disease and famine due to global warming. Or it could just mean that people decide not to have as many children because it decreases their quality of life. When the earth had lots of easily accessible natural resources, making lots of children was a good strategy. Maybe when you can barely find enough food for yourself, you might choose to have only 1 kid instead of 2.

The "near extinction" (i.e. drastic lowering of human population), need not involve any significant amount of suffering (not more than we have today anyway), and it may not even need to be noticeable without statistical analysis. If this decline happens over thousands or tens of thousands of years, it will not be noticeable over the course of a human lifetime. Failing to notice a 0.1% drop in population over your lifetime will be like failing to notice a 0.1 degree increase in average temperature over your lifetime.

In fact, if you believe overpopulation is a big problem, this kind of gradual decrease in human population may even be considered a good thing until our survival as a species begins to be threatened by it.

I suspect something far more normal will happen. We will simply hit an equilibrium point, where the world is just hospitable enough to cause humans to have about a 1:1 birth:death ratio, with some fluctuations. Technology may even raise this equilibrium point well above the 7 billion people we have now.

about a month ago
top

OEM Windows 7 License Sales End This Friday

TsuruchiBrian Re:Unfortunate... (242 comments)

Good point.

about a month ago
top

OEM Windows 7 License Sales End This Friday

TsuruchiBrian Re:Unfortunate... (242 comments)

I will start by saying I actually use windows 7 and various linux distros at home and work. My wife's laptop has windows 8 and I've built a few desktops for friends and family that have windows 8.

1. I actually think the search function completely removes the need for a start button. In fact the only time I ever use a start button in windows 7 is to get to the search, so I really could do without it.

2. Hot corners I find annoying, but I get the reason they exist and I think I could learn to appreciate them when I get used to them.

3. I don't really use standard windows apps to view any kind of files. The file associations usually get changed automatically when I install my preferred apps.

4. I have had no problems with ACPI. But even still I wouldn't consider this a UI problem but more of a traditional software/hardware engineering problem.

5. I definitely don't put in a lot of effort learning the foibles of any UI. I pretty much just stick to whatever is intuitive. I'm lazy.

The thing about Win8 is that the "extra UI choice" is not really a choice, it's something I had to dink with every time I touched the computer. It was a Bad User Experience, and frankly, it was easier to go back to Win7 than it was to twist Win8 into something I could work with comfortably.

Yeah I had to dink with it every time too. That's why I think it's worse. It slows me down, but only a little. That's why I think it's only a little worse. I prefer 7, but I can use 8 just fine, and I haven't spent a lot of time figuring it out. I certainly don't feel like it's time to hoard windows 7. I think if I had to use 8 a lot more, I'd probably just try to embrace the spirit of what the UI folks were trying to do and work out some new solutions for the parts I just couldn't learn to appreciate.

I think using so many different UI's has made adapting to new UIs really easy for me, and I don't want to get too comfortable anywhere if it means I lose some of that versatility.

I use windows because I play games and playing windows games on linux is still kind of hard, so I definitely feel the pain of being stuck on a less preferred platform because of app compatibility. I think the situation has gotten a lot better and the future of linux gaming seems to be pretty bright. I use steam on linux and look forward to trying steamos in the next couple weeks.

I definitely wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Adobe to support linux. Virtualization technology has come a pretty long way. I have never tried to run adobe software in a virtual machine specifically, but I've heard it works pretty well on modern machines.

about a month ago
top

OEM Windows 7 License Sales End This Friday

TsuruchiBrian Re:Stop developing 64bit (242 comments)

Each application is still capped at 4GB of addressable space in PAE. So if you are hitting the 4GB cap because of lots of apps using a lot of memory rather than 1 app using all the memory, then PAE is a "good" solution. But upgrading to a 64 bit OS is probably a better solution.

about a month ago

Submissions

TsuruchiBrian hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

TsuruchiBrian has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?