Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment More options = better (Score 3, Informative) 115

The reason that we have all of those ships in the first place is to have the option to use them, if needed. Here, the Navy is creating the option of sourcing fuel from domestic, non-petroleum sources. Add to that the building of the infrastructure and development of efficient techniques of production for military and domestic use, and you've got nothing but gravy (which is not quite a biofuel...)

So long as the admiralty keeps the options of nuclear and petroleum fuels as alternatives, I expect this will benefit far more than it will cost.

Comment Re:50 billion $ in 14 years (Score 1) 345

Wow! Someone that gets it! There will always be ways of keeping one's communications private, if one makes the effort to do so. A backdoor in a miscreant's operating system software won't help at all where he can use a die, a pad of paper and a match. That there is so much discussion about encryption in political circles betrays the fact that our politicians don't have the first clue what they are talking about.

Comment Careless words (Score 1) 339

From the title here: "A Typo Almost Derailed Paris Climate Deal"

To "derail" something implies that it was on the rails. It never was, and it still is not. The only thing these parties of this "agreement" have "agreed" upon is that they'll make a big dog-and-pony show for their political constituents. Mr. Kerry: declaring oneself to be responsible and caring does not make one so.

Comment How about military espionage? (Score 1) 108

The whole point of intellectual property (whether it be patents, trademarks or copyrights) is to make the subject matter available to the public where it can be seen. Agreeing not to conduct the theft of IP is like agreeing not to pee on the plains of Mars. Meaningless.

What I don't see here is anything about military espionage. Someone has been lifting the personal identities of government employees, which could be used to extort them into revealing secrets. Where's the hotline for that?

This is just another meaningless dog and pony show from our vanity-trumps-everything-in-chief.

Comment Re:Did anyone read the article? (Score 1) 215

And that is why Lexmark will fail. The first sale doctrine protects subsequent purchasers of a patented product from having to secure a license. Here, the refiller will be protected. Now if Lexmark wants to enforce this, they can go after the persons who originally bought the cartridges, if they can find them and if the legal costs and bad mojo are worth it to them. (I'm guessing not.)

This is not the first time a patent holder has threatened to enforce a patent beyond what the law permits. A weak patent that others are afraid to violate is better than a strong patent, enforced or not. Lexmark will make as much of this as they can, because it will scare off the refillers and increase their profits.

Comment Embarrassment galore! (Score 1) 49

Folks: the Copyright Office has no enforcement powers. All it is is a repository for registrations of claims of copyrights. Modernizing the copyright office is like modernizing the drivers license division of a state: it doesn't affect who is allowed to drive (assuming that it performs competently either way.) It is not the DL division that enforces the driving laws, it is the police and the courts. Same thing for the Copyright Office; a registration improves a plaintiff's claim, but that claim still has to be made in federal court.

The author of that article (Mr. Simmons) summarizes together a lot of past and suggested reforms. Why he does that I don't know, for restructuring and/or refinancing the Copyright Office won't change the law nor change anyone's rights.

Finally, those of you who promote shortening the copyright period of works in existence: get over it, it ain't a-gonna change. The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution would require that everyone who had a shortened copyright would have to be compensated justly, and that would clog up the courts beyond imagination. Congress may be foolish sometimes, but it ain't that stupid! Now if you want to talk about shortening the term of copyrights that originate in the future, that's different...

Comment Collimation? (Score 1) 64

I can't help but wonder whether this kind of mirror could be used to produce a highly collimated laser beam. The more regular the surface of the mirror, the more parallel the rays of light emitted. I wonder if this technology could be effectively used to make a weapon that requires less power (the light being more highly focused on the target.) Perhaps the Star Wars concept of the Reagan years has returned?

Comment Interesting concept, but... (Score 1) 41

it really isn't useful except where there is a changing atmosphere and the absence of a stronger source of energy such as the Sun. I imagine there are places on the Earth where this could be used, such as deep within caves or piping. Where there is a change in humidity, there is likely to be a change in temperature too. That means that a Peltier device or a battery might be a better choice in most cases.

But I have no doubt that someone will, within a few days or hours, propose this as a solution to global warming. Let the games begin!

Comment Re:FFS, it's been available for decades (Score 1) 310


The model version being used for the CMIP5 simulations will soon be available in a complete package, though there are nightly snapshots of the current code repository available (including the frozen 'AR5_branch'), but users should be aware that these snapshots are presented 'as is' and are not necessarily suitable for publication-quality experiments.

In other words, the model isn't ready/reliable. Perhaps you'd better stop staring at the Sun for so long, AC: the risks to your health are much greater than those posed by Global Warming.

Comment Duh... (Score 1) 637

So says the article that we lack "the ability to adequately process the need for the whole species' long-term survival". Evolution sets forth that we compete with members of our species for resources, caring most about what happens to our relatives (those who have the most-in-common DNA). The reason we don't care what happens to the "whole species" is because that is worse for us as individuals, in the context of the propagation of our DNA.

Oh, and climate change doesn't concern the "whole species" either. It concerns only those who have beach-front property and those who will have to move from arid landscapes. The "whole species" will do fine through GW.

Comment Re:Meaningless politial release (Score 0) 310

And if you read the website for the Fifth CMIP (at your link on the first page), you'll see that it:

provide(s) a multi-model context for 1) assessing the mechanisms responsible for model differences in poorly understood feedbacks associated with the carbon cycle and with clouds, 2) examining climate “predictability” and exploring the ability of models to predict climate on decadal time scales, and, more generally, 3) determining why similarly forced models produce a range of responses.

The snippet from the press release doesn't identify the model(s) used; it doesn't even specify a model associated with the Fifth CMIP. So even if one were do "dig around" as you suggest, he would still have no idea what model(s) were used to generate their projections. Now when you get around to wrapping your head around that, then you can turn in your ignorance to overlooking the admission on the CMIP website that (1) the models they consider produce significantly different projections and (2) the feedbacks are "poorly understood".

Have a nice day.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It takes all sorts of in & out-door schooling to get adapted to my kind of fooling" - R. Frost