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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Fix how it handles tabs (Score 1) 223

by AngelofDeath-02 (#30586870) Attached to: A Mixed Review For Google Chrome On Linux

I never understood why one would want to have the tabs save when you close the browser. Perhaps someone could enlighten me? maybe provide a few cases where this might actually be useful?

Having a bunch of tabs when you start up the browser usually means things take longer to load, which slows me down when I only want to browse one page. Additionally when closing a browser, I close it because I'm done with whatever's in it. I think the main difference is usage. I use firefox windows as a sort of divider in addition to tabs. If I search for one thing, I'll have a FF window open and it'll contain all the tabs related to this, and another window with whatever else I'm doing. it seems like you don't.

Comment: Re:Lot's assumptions (Score 1) 196

by AngelofDeath-02 (#27550217) Attached to: Iraq Game Sparks Outrage, Soldiers Have Mixed Reactions

I would certainly be open to that idea ...
I assume that when he watches movies about assassination, leading assaults, war, his talk of "That's the best job in the world, I wish I could do that" is bullshit.

He was part of the initial invasion force of the Marines, so I have to assume that if anyone saw action - it would have been him. While he was out there he claimed the whole experience sucked, one of his squad members decided to taste brain, etc.

A few years later he wants to go again. His job sucks, but it pays good.
He is well on his way to a degree (Wants to get in law enforcement) and has a girlfriend and they are serious.
He joins the national guard.
Yet he volunteers (several times) to go back out there.

I can't tell you his motivation other than what he tells me, but for someone who thought going out to Iraq in the invasion force sucked.

Even if I assume most of this is bullshit, and he's really never seen action, he's already gotten all the positive benefits of serving - what sane person would want to do it again knowing he risks his life or quality there of?

Comment: Re:Lot's assumptions (Score 4, Insightful) 196

by AngelofDeath-02 (#27548021) Attached to: Iraq Game Sparks Outrage, Soldiers Have Mixed Reactions

Well, there are always people like a friend of mine:
Who volunteered for deployment AGAIN, and is now disappointed that he isn't shooting people.
Who was part of the initial invasion force.

Who was probably changed by his experiences and now feels civilian life is boring and dull.

Oh well, I wonder if he'll still not regret it if he loses a limb or something ..

Comment: Re:Idea (Score 1) 225

by AngelofDeath-02 (#27528699) Attached to: Data Centers Work To Reduce Water Usage

Because nothing will be in that water that wasn't already in there from the treatment center, except maybe some extra copper if they are using copper heatpipes or something. There's nothing additional to treat, and nothing to be any more harmful on reintroduction than it was already. If it's something they add, it's something they monitor. The only things that would accumulate from halving and reintroducing the water into the system is stuff they would add, and thus monitor.

Essentially, in the scenario listed by the post I was replying to:

Water with chemicals x y and z is provided by the water center.
The water evaporates, leaving concentrated doses of say, x and y, but z evaporates.
Water with high doses of x and y are undrinkable.

I say, it doesn't matter. Since x, y, and z are monitored.
Highly concentrated water will be introduced into the water, and will be tested for. The dosage will thus be adjusted accordingly. Those random chemicals you're referring to are irrelevant because they aren't arbitrarily added by the water being processed at a waste water treatment center. Therefore, they aren't going to be any more concentrated than they would have been before. If anything, they are added by us pissing whatever drugs we've taken into our toilets. (which water from a data center is unlikely to have any more of than it did already.)

You can't even really complain about the frequency of testing because the load of the data center is going to be pretty constant. Consistent levels of chloramine, in my example, will be returned to the treatment center. (Btw, chloramine is Chlorine and Ammonia, and is used in place of chlorine to prevent bad stuff from growing in the water.) This stuff is used because it is more stable than chlorine and will /not/ evaporate. It will be stuff like this that survives the return trip into the water system at concentrated levels.

Maybe I am missing something about waste water treatment, and what chemicals are involved, but meh.

Comment: Re:Idea (Score 1) 225

by AngelofDeath-02 (#27527687) Attached to: Data Centers Work To Reduce Water Usage

On the other hand, when this water gets re-processed, the facility needs to add that much less chemicals to treat the water in order to maintain chloramine levels. If they use chlorine, though - that will evaporate with the water. This is true for anything that a water treatment plant adds, these levels are monitored and a data centers impact will be pretty constant.

Anything else that might be in the water supply that gets concentrated due to not evaporating was already there in the first place and isn't being added by anyone but us.

In short, you are probably right that you wouldn't want to drink the water coming out of the data center, but once it cycles back through the waste water treatment center it's just as drinkable as it ever was.

Comment: Re:Thank you Einstein (Score 1) 412

by AngelofDeath-02 (#27377273) Attached to: Why Toddlers Don't Do What They're Told

And yet, anecdotal evidence in itself isn't very meaningful either. It's good to affirm what you experience to be true scientifically. It's also good to be open to the possibility that it's wrong, or we might publically crucify the next person who says the world is round, (Because, you know, that never happened) burn "witches" at the stake, or go on living superstitious lives where we are scared shitless because a black cat walked our path.

My point is anecdotal evidence isn't the be all, end all. It's not even sound.

Comment: Re:Behaviour should be considered in general (Score 1) 681

by AngelofDeath-02 (#27062695) Attached to: Should Job Seekers Tell Employers To Quit Snooping?

Probably something about perspective. Maybe their wife was a total bitch, their family pressured them into staying with the marriage, and lots of alcohol was involved with a close friend and mistakes were made.

Also, some people have different attitudes about different things. One friend of mine ditched school. A lot. Slept through his alarm, etc.
Then he got a job and that crap never happens anymore. Voila! The job matters to him and he has incentive! I think you're presuming to know too much about somebody than the evidence really justifies.

Comment: Re:Are you catholic? (Score 1) 902

by AngelofDeath-02 (#27009861) Attached to: Designer Babies

Is that really any different than actively taking measures to prevent conception, such as birth control or condoms?
You're stopping lots of potential fetuses from ever getting the chance to exist, And you do so willfully because you don't want kids.
Is it different because they "might" not have formed? You can always have a miscarriage.

In the end I don't think there's much sense in worrying about what could have happened, particularly if that outcome isn't acceptable to you.

If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.

Working...