Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Not exactly take, but augment (Score 1) 340

If it takes 100 robotic maintenance people, then the Roombas won't be cheaper and the Janitors won't be fired.

A far more plausible scenario is 100 janitors fired and 10 new robotic maintenance people. Because then the Roombas are sufficiently cheaper.

And that is more-or-less what happened when we mechanized agriculture - a whole lot of farm hands were replaced by tractors and a small number of tractor mechanics. At the time, those former farm-hands got jobs in the brand-new factories and we got the industrial revolution.

The problem with this time is there is no job left for the displaced humans. A truly general-purpose AI and advanced robotics would be able to do any job. Including designing, building and maintaining robots.

Comment Re:Not Science, Medicine (Score 1) 319

Exactly but if they were a scientist then this is when they would stop and go and look at a different problem

Uh, no. This is where a good scientist keeps digging into it in order to expand our level of knowledge.

At the same time, you also start manufacturing the drug because it works, even though you don't know how it works down to the last atom.

Comment Re:Not Science, Medicine (Score 1) 319

Medical researchers tend to focus far more on correlation over causation because that is what is most important to this

No, they focus on correlation because causation is frequently so complex that it can not be deciphered with our current level of knowledge. It can often take decades after we find the correlation that we can nail down the causation.

Comment Re:Maybe people are oversaturated (Score 2) 129

Clicks let people actually see a quantifiable effect from their advertising (flawed as it might be). That is a lot harder with things like TV commercials and print ads.

IMO, those commercials and ads had become very over-valued because they couldn't really be measured. Especially when the people selling ad time/space talk up "brand recognition" and similar effects as the major value in buying their time/space.

Comment Re:the real reason theyre arguing it. (Score 1) 310

It's also about the jury during the post-battery-fire lawsuit.

Plaintiff: "I burned myself changing my oil right after I shut the engine off!!"
Jurors: "Dumbass. Everyone knows engines are hot"

Plaintiff: "I electrocuted myself repairing my fridge while it was plugged in!!"
Jurors: "Dumbass. Everyone knows you have to unplug electrical appliances before taking them apart."

Plaintiff: "My lithium battery caught fire after I put this wire in the wrong place!"
Jurors: "What? This thing in my pocket CAN CATCH FIRE?!?!"

As the technology moves from magic to mundane, these things will move from scary to mundane for the jury in the inevitable lawsuit over a botched repair.

Comment Re:Begs the question... (Score 1) 116

I know you weren't making a complete list, but an additional factor is we have linear DNA. The enzyme that copies our DNA sticks to the DNA being copied by grabbing on to a few base pairs before and after the copy site. Since we have linear DNA, the enzyme falls off before reaching the end. So each time our cells replicate, the DNA inside them gets a little shorter. And eventually, that "little shorter" is going to run into something important.

(To counteract this, a whole lot of junk base pairs are added to the ends of our DNA molecules shortly after an egg is fertilized. That provides the DNA that can be lost without harm during that person's lifetime. But it will eventually run out)

Comment Re:Failure of Big Science (Score 1) 457

These are a dime-a-dozen. The Internet is full of such lists assembled

The first link just lists predictions. It doesn't actually provide any data showing the predictions were wrong.

The second link is talking about popular news articles form the 1970s....that were not about warming. In fact, the "we're heading into an ice age" prediction in the 1970s was a fringe position not backed by the majority of climate scientists. So, the exact opposite of what you claim.

And I'm not going to bother going through the rest of the google results when the top two are not remotely close to your claims.

Dr. David Viner, a scientist with the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia, told the UK Independent in 2000 []. Fail [].
“End of skiing” in Scotland.

"Ski" does not appear in those articles.

With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.

It is now 2017, but snow is still plentiful in Scotland. Indeed, the 2014 was the snowiest since 1945

Hey look! You confused "weather" with "climate". That is an extremely common mistake made by those denying climate change. You should really learn the difference before attempting to discuss the issue.

Also, "no ski industry" does not mean "no snowfall". Having a skiing industry requires either making a lot of man-made snow or having a lot of natural snowfall in the right place, and consistently. You can not make a ski industry out of one year's snowfall, especially when that snowfall is not where your ski resort is. Unless you raise ticket prices to the point where man-made snow can do the job, but that apparently requires ticket prices too high to maintain the industry.

Amusingly, when your citations actually talk about the ski industry, they describe an industry in collapse because they do not consistently receive snow in the right places.....which would actually back climate change.

I made no claims requiring citations

Actually, you did. You made the claim that climate scientists are consistently wrong in their predictions.

And given the utterly abysmal quality of citations you have provided, you still need to provide those citations. And with your claim that they are always wrong, your inability to provide any citations is again rather odd.

That may be too onerous a requirement in the case of Climate Science — the experiments take many years, so any replication is difficult.

Replication in this case would be getting similar results using different measurement methods. For example, tree rings, ice cores, historical temperature data and sediment samples providing results that are consistent with each other.

Comment Re:Al Gore predicted... (Score 0) 401

What Gore actually said:

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Could happen in as little as 7 years is not will happen in 7 years. Also, 2007 + 7 is not 2013. But please, keep insisting the people warning about global warming are the ones being inaccurate.

Comment Re:Two Problems (Score 2) 401

1) Thermodynamics wins - to freeze the arctic they will actually generate more heat increasing overall heating of the planet.

Only if you think the Earth is a closed system. It is not.

The point to having more ice coverage is to reflect more light back into space. Thus taking the energy contained within that light away from Earth.

2) The arctic has thawed before. This is a cycle.

The fact that something has happened before does not make it a cycle. And the fact that it is happening again does not mean it is part of a natural cycle.

In the past, Earth was completely covered in ice. It was also completely ice free. Humans will find it difficult to survive in anywhere near our current population in either of those extremes.

Slashdot Top Deals

The reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work.