Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Issue is more complicated (Score 2, Interesting) 318

My first knee-jerk reaction was also, "Yeah, SHE couldn't take it." But after reflecting on Linus Torvald's style and comparing it with workplaces that I've been at over the years... yeah, I can't say I blame her. The key to successful leadership is giving criticism when it's due and also giving praise when it's due. Books have been written about how to be a successful manager and leader. A few I can think of off the top of my head:

How to Make Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie
The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey
The Art of War by Sun Tzu

You have to be able to understand what motivates and what de-motivates people. The Linux community has a hard time attracting talent precisely because the people in charge have essentially zero skill in interpersonal relationships, and often they are completely unaware of this. Looking at it from the perspective of pure instrumental rationality, when you're leading a project, your primary focus should be saying and doing things that advance the project. Taking glee in dishing verbal abuse does not, most of the time, advance this goal.

Comment Re:What applications? (Score 1) 172

I 100% agree that this would be a kick-ass display for a laptop, IF:

1. The OS and programs were actually written to support it,
2. The display has good contrast and color reproduction (which, at these high PPIs, is far more important than sheer resolution anyway), and
3. Pushing all these pixels doesn't heat up or slow down the system unacceptably.

Unfortunately we're probably a bit far from ANY of these being true, so the experience might as well be a net negative one. Windows has laughable high-resolution support (and Linux doesn't fare too awesomely either - and I'm a devout Linux user). And doing anything on an 8K display is likely going to eat into your battery like no tomorrow, both in terms of powering the display itself and powering the graphics chipset hardware.

I have a Galaxy S6 edge that has an insane AMOLED 2560x1440 display. I'm absolutely in love with the display, but power consumption is a huge issue.

Comment Re: there is no (Score 1) 402

Holy shit, I'm not talking about the 'hiatus', I'm talking about the suitability of climate models. Something that you still seem to be unable to understand, which leads me to conclude that you're either 1) trolling me, 2) being purposefully dense, or 3) just a moron. I'm going to go with the simplest explanation, which is 3.

In my initial comment, I was talking about climate models. You linked the von Storch paper, supposedly to show that the climate models were incorrect. I correctly pointed out that his statistical analysis was very flawed and that you couldn't simply dismiss the climate models so easily. But I also addressed your point about the hiatus, in that even if it does exist in the time-series data, it could (as a possibility, not a definitive one) simply be due to bad data. That SHOULD have ended the discussion... but no, morons like you always just continue to dribble and dribble (which is great actually because you nuts always wind up revealing yourselves).

Just stop talking and maybe you won't dig yourself any deeper.

Comment Re: there is no (Score 1) 402

> Actually, nuclear generating stations end up being the second cheapest.

Citation needed; it's very easy to make nuclear power look cheap by ignoring waste handling costs, decommissioning costs, and other 'hidden' costs.

That said, I fully agree that nuclear compares favorably to, say, coal. Coal is bad news.

> Solar, at the current state of the art, never generates as much power as it takes to manufacture the solar cells.

A common myth. Today's solar panels can produce many times the power required to manufacture them over their lifetime.

> Wind farms are only intermittent sources for the great majority of the country and have their own high maintenance cost compared to megawatts delivered to contend with.

'Base load' power is an overblown issue; the real issue is matching supply curves with demand curves. In many places in the world wind supply curves are actually fairly well matched with demand. In other places, cheap storage (e.g. pumped hydro) is available. There are actually few places in the world where a combination of solar, wind, and some form of daily storage is not enough to meet demand economically.

> What is criminal is that the U.S. doesn't recycle nuclear fuel. That was required by law under the Atomic Energy Act of 1972 but Uncle Sugar has yet to deliver on MOX fuel. And that is proven technology in use in Germany, France, and soon in China.

Actually, what is criminal is France's insistence on fuel reprocessing and burdening the costs of this reprocessing on customers and taxpayers. Reprocessing is incredibly expensive and it doesn't even solve anything; it just turns a small amount of high-level waste into a very large amount of low-level waste. Once-through cycles are by far the most cost effective (and they also produce less waste overall).

Comment Re: there is no (Score 1) 402

> There's just nothing else that doesn't release CO2 that can do the base-load job.

Maybe, maybe not. Battery storage is getting better all the time. 50 years is a long time. 'Base load' power is also a bit of an overblown issue; the real problem is matching supply curves with demand curves, and I think smart grids will do a really great job of that in the coming years.

> The free market will go nuclear in the short term

I'm afraid I disagree. Nuclear just isn't compatible with the free market. The market gravitates towards ideas that require as little investment as possible, pay off their debts as soon as possible, and have high profit margins. Nuclear is the exact opposite of this. As I said, the economics of nuclear dictate the construction of huge, multi-gigawatt power stations just to turn a profit. It is also common for companies to leave and shoulder the decommissioning costs onto the taxpayer.

Comment Re: there is no (Score 1) 402

Those papers have nothing to do with the von Storch paper. Von Storch's central argument that "we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level." is wrong and based on faulty statistical analysis.

We can talk about the global warming 'hiatus' separately, but the fact of the matter is that you really can't make a strong conclusion either way based on the data we have. The time period in question is just too short. These links put forth an alternate explanation based on faulty ocean temperature measurements that seems pretty plausible to me:

Comment Re: there is no (Score 1) 402

> Global warming has, unfortunately, become a political issue, with people - and media outlets - picking a side and promoting it to demonstrate their allegiance.

Yes, but by whom? By people who have a political agenda against any attempt to address climate change.

> That's a bad thing, even if their side is generally in the right: they refuse to concede on any nuance, because admitting to even the slightest uncertainty in their position means giving ground to the enemy.

If the anti-agw crowd ever made any arguments that were based even in the slightest bit on facts, then I'd be the first to hear them out. But they don't. It's ALWAYS bullshit. Very often it's actually conscious, deliberate lying.

> My impression, for what it's worth, as a scientist in a different field who's read a bit of the literature, is that there's a clear consensus that global warming is happening, but honest disagreement about its extent and consequences.

I'll agree with this, but this isn't what the anti-agw crowd says. They disagree that it's happening or they disagree that it's due to human activity, both of which are demonstrably true and, at this point, far beyond any reasonable doubt.

Comment Re: there is no (Score 1) 402

I wonder when you molten salt freaks will get off it. Molten salt and especially LFTR technology is nowhere near the maturity level for large-scale power production. I'd be surprised if a pilot plant could be built in 30 years. MSRE had numerous serious/fatal problems which LFTR advocates conveniently never mention. Even if LFTR does work, it would likely be INSANELY EXPENSIVE, in terms of final cost per delivered kWh. There are very good reasons why LFTR would be horrendously expensive, and I'll explain them if you want to know.

Comment Re:Science Requires Effort (Score 1) 246

Exactly. Science is hard. Mixing chemicals and making cool explosions or fire demonstrations or baking soda volcanoes may be fun but it's not science. Study after study has shown that kids that are exposed to effort-intensive mathematics, computer science, and general STEM knowledge early on in life do much better than those who are exposed to it later - even if they do not wind up pursuing STEM fields as careers.

nohup rm -fr /&