Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Lets cut through to the chase (Score 4, Insightful) 241

The difference is that Linux and Mac GUIs get choppy under the slightest load, while Windows says smooth like butter in every situation. Some people have even installed Windows on their Macs and they are getting more graphics performance from the same hardware.

You're conflating a couple of different things. Windows general-purpose multitasking is terrible compared to Linux/MacOS (at least based on Win7 experiences).

On the other hand, Microsoft has had a laser focus on Windows gaming, with the obvious tie-in to Xbox gaming. This has resulted in very fast graphics drivers for Windows.

Linux seems to be doing well lately, with some Steam games getting higher frame rates on Linux than on Windows. Linux may end up being the best of all possible worlds (well out of three worlds anyhow) given its lean design, performance and stability. Perhaps eventually it'll see more proprietary software ports like Solidworks and ProEngineer.

Comment Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score 1) 422

You appear to be getting some things confused.

The surface of the planet is warming up. We have models based on currently understood science that seem to give reasonable projections, at least so far. We can make some predictions as to what's likely to happen. That's the science.

The surface of the planet has been warming up for centuries, since the Little Ice Age. For the vast majority of that time, it had nothing to do with CO2. One of the major criticism of climate alarmism is that natural variability is massively downplayed.

The models don't appear to be giving "reasonable projections" at the moment. Remember the hiatus, which has been acknowledged by the IPCC. Those "predictions" won't be worth much until the models better correspond to reality, and have been validated in some meaningful way. They are far from first principles models.

What we should do is a political matter that should be informed by science. Whether or not we build more nuclear power plants (which I'm strongly in favor of) is a political matter that should be informed by science. Unfortunately, there's a lot of politicians and environmentalists that have their own strong (and often subsidized) opinions that take no account of the science, or positively deny it.

I don't have much of a quibble with that, except that what we should do should also be informed by desirable outcomes in general. For instance, LED light bulbs are clearly a win, as they save money while presenting no discernible downside except higher initial investment.

I'm glad to see you support nuclear power, keep it up!

There's other things we can do to cut the amount of carbon dioxide entering the air that aren't going to hit poor people disproportionately. I understand the argument that we're not sure enough of what's happening to do anything drastic, and the argument that we want to keep up economic and technological growth so we can do something when we're more certain of what to do, but I would like to see the science at least accepted.

The basic science is accepted by virtually everyone - CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. The science that attempts to inform policy includes other controversial facets such as water vapor amplification. If the expected peak concentration of CO2 (550-600 PPM) will not cause problematic heating, there is no need for expensive, drastic action. Whether CO2 related warming will be problematic is still absolutely in dispute. Recent estimates for climate sensitivity to CO2 have been trending downwards.

Comment Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score 1, Insightful) 422

Look at tetraethyl lead, the lead industry, and the scientists who discovered in the 1940s the horrible things TEL does to children, then read on why it wasn't banned until 1973.

Look at smoking, the scientists who started figuring out all the awful shit it does to the body, and the tobacco industry that spent 25 years fighting a systematic FUD campaign (and personal character attacks against them).

Now scientists have spent decades fleshing out the basic idea that Arrhenius articulated about 120 years ago and it's becoming increasingly a sign of lunacy to claim he wasn't right...

What was Arrhenius' estimated value for transient climate sensitivity to CO2 again?

There are many informed skeptics who understand the science, but don't believe we have enough information yet for drastic measures.

Yet just as smoking-causes-cancer denialism was the unbelievably stupid meme that Just Wouldn't Fucking Die because the tobacco industry kept funding it, and the leaded-gasoline-is-harmless denialism that was funded directly by the lead industry before that, now certain interests that want to burn and/or strip mine the word in the name of the Holy Lord's Next Quarterly Profit Report are funding a massive, systematic attack against any coherent action on climate change. And you people are falling for it. AGAIN.

What "coherent action on climate change" do you recommend, exactly? Not a single suggested mitigation will make a significant difference in the estimated (guesstimated) temperature by 2100. The one thing that would make a significant difference, if in fact there's a problem worth the effort, is a mass transition from coal to nuclear power worldwide (ESPECIALLY in China and India). However, apparently nuclear is anathema to the vast majority of climate alarmists and environmentalists, despite it being the safest power generation method in use by far.

Are we seriously expected to believe that 97% of the world's scientists are involved in some sort of massive scheme to... uh... steal grant money?

I think the majority of scientists involved are honest, if not doing a great job with the science. You should read Judith Curry's site for some rational discussion of the issue from a highly qualified climate scientist. As far as the way the science is being used to advocate social change, remember that the most effective lies contain a grain of truth...

Or that maybe damn near everyone who looks into what's going on realizes we really gotta do something about this crap?

Actually, that's not obvious at all. It is clear that more research is needed before taking drastic measures that will harm the poor around the world more than any other group. In the meantime, we should embark on win/win efforts such as a mass conversion from coal to nuclear energy. Coal power is bad from many perspectives, such as killing tens of thousands of people every year, increasing ocean acidification, and providing a rich source of organic mercury. Solar and wind are fine as long as they're cost-effective, but they aren't a good fit for base load power.

Comment Re:That's not the only way it's inferior (Score 1) 279

AFAIK, the F16 and F15 never had Naval variants. Or STOL.

The F-18 obviously did have a naval variant. We've had exactly one VTOL/STOL aircraft, the Harrier, so that's largely an unknown. Regardless, adding those capabilities to a basic airframe is far easier than designing and procuring an entirely different plane.

The F-22 would have been a great carrier plane, it would have provided both interceptor and strike roles nicely. Sadly, sanity has not prevailed.

All that said, the most basic definition of "multirole" is fighter versus bomber, and in that context what I said is entirely pertinent.

Comment Re:That's not the only way it's inferior (Score 2) 279

The last major attempts for a "one size fits all" muti-role fighter was the f4 which resulted in the services abandoning the approach in favor of the F18, F-15, and A-10. Like a bad penny the multi-role fighter concept just keeps coming back. We are ending up with a plane that does everything and will not be able to do any of it particularly well.

I see you've conveniently forgotten the F-16, which is the plane the F-35 is succeeding. The F-16 has been a resounding success. Whether that translates to the F-35 remains to be seen, but the precedent is there.

The F-15 and F-18 are also highly successful examples of multirole aircraft, FYI.

I do wish the F-22 production line hadn't been shutdown, it could have been a very successful export to Japan and Australia...plus the US could have bought a few hundred more.

Comment Re:Mod parent up. (Score 0) 552

While I believe that you intended that as a joke, it actually reflects the reality that he missed.

Becoming a programmer requires that a certain amount of infrastructure exist to provide the education necessary. So , no, we aren't talking about 95% vs 5%.

Secondly, the companies pushing for more visas are NOT doing it because they're looking for the best and the brightest from around the world. They're doing it to drive the price of programming down.

It's fucking PROGRAMMING. It can be done ANYWHERE in the world. If company X wants to hire the top 20 programmers in India then they can do that. And those programmers can work from home (in India). They are the best, right?

I have no problem with the idea that bringing the "best and brightest" here to the US is good - meaning the top 10% (or even 5%) of talent. Those folks will innovate and start companies, boosting the overall economy and status of the USA globally. The problem with the current immigration push is it's bringing in millions of basically unskilled people, at great cost to the USA. That's essentially treasonous.

I also agree with you on the point of bringing in "regular" developers to drive the cost down. That's a bunch of crap, and has been for decades.

We need to kick out the current group of political clowns sending us down the drain, and get back to policies that actually help most people here in the USA.

Comment Re:Let me get this right (Score 1) 839

You need to read about the "prebate" aspect of the Fair Tax. It eliminates the regression that concerns you.

In fact, most of what you wrote is so far off base, you should just go read about the Fair Tax at the source, so you can discuss it intelligently.

The current tax code consists of 73,000 pages of regulations, requiring a giant, intrusive bureaucracy, an armada of tax preparers, and a fleet of tax lawyers. It is unfair, and it is broken. Just imagine if all that effort, and all those people were put to productive use instead of accounting.

Comment Re:Let me get this right (Score 1) 839

That's very simply a bunch of crap.

With a consumption tax, it's up to you how much you are taxed. It rewards saving and investing much more than our current tax system. It would also get rid of the inequity between income tax and capital gains tax, which benefits the wealthy a great deal.

It would boost the economy immensely, and eliminate several forms of double taxation we "enjoy" now. It would also eliminate the IRS, and government snooping into every aspect of our economic life - that is a huge win as well. (Not to mention the billions saved on tax preparation and related activities...)

Comment Re:Headlines for the next week: Global Warming a l (Score 1) 635

Sorry, but El Nino isn't cooperating.

Actually, given the likely solar activity we're going to see for the next twenty years, I fully expect a cooling trend of some type.

The right policy prescription is pretty simple - ton of research should go into cheap, clean energy sources like LFTR. Displacing coal power with clean energy is a win regardless of climate issues.

Comment Re:How much money are we talking about? (Score 2) 387

Actually I think you're more representative of someone who's making a lot of money working with an unpopular language.

C++ has fallen way down the charts, and I'd be willing to bet fewer than 10% of those writing software today are writing C++, especially using recent/advanced features. You're making good money because you're using one of the more difficult and painful languages out there. :-)

Sooner or later a superior language that fills the C++ niche will come along, then it will go to a truly legacy status...finally.

Comment Re:LOL SteamOS (Score 1) 294

Must be some kind of masochism. I really can see no other reason why people insist on getting wiped by MS time and again.

Right now Sony is eating Microsoft's lunch with PS4 actually.

I think SteamOS has a good chance of doing well, especially given how close Linux is to MacOS. Mac marketshare is picking up, so hitting both with (more or less) a single port is attractive. Various game engines are also making cross-platform a lot easier.

Windows has had its heyday, it's definitely on the decline going forward.

Comment Re: The Heartland Institute (Score 1) 552

The same process that reduces Arctic ice (warming), increases Antarctic ice (warming).

That is one hypothesis, and an unproven one.

The difference is that the sea ice in Antarctica comes from the land.

No, almost all of it comes from freezing seawater.

Also there is some increase in mainland ice in Antarctica due to the increased moisture in the air (also due to warming) as normally Antarctic air is dry like a desert.

Right, it never snows in Antarctica...the miles-thick sheets of ice appeared by magic. Got it.

Regardless, both places are losing ice in the long run.

That of course remains to be seen. Also be clear on sea ice versus landlocked ice. Some parts of the antarctic icecap are growing.

Adding Arctic sea-ice coverage to Antarctic sea-ice coverage to say that everything is ok is just trying to spin the facts to suit your politics.

No, it's an objective look at polar sea ice based on the only directly measurable metric. Your interpretation of that is exactly that - one interpretation. Furthermore, you should reflect (oops, bad pun) on the fact that the additional antarctic sea ice increases albedo and thus has a net cooling effect - the same argument used to say that arctic sea ice loss is increasing arctic ocean heating.

The science is quite clear.

No, the science is not clear. What is clear is the desperation of those shouting "the science is settled" while stubborn reality continues to contradict the beautiful theories and models. :-)

Comment Re: The Heartland Institute (Score 1) 552

Try looking at actual data [woodfortrees.org]. That's the RSS data, which is inherently better than spotty surface station coverage in that it directly integrates the entire lower troposphere. That's a slightly negative trend that's going hard on twenty years...all with CO2 levels worth panicking over according to some.

Ok, what makes the RSS data better than the UAH MSU satellite data? If you're ignoring that you're just cherry picking.

Nothing in particular. Here's the last 10 years (you know, the 10 years with the highest CO2 levels in history) of UAH data, showing a dead flat temperature trend. The point being, warming has definitely paused on around a decadal time scale. Will it last longer? That's a very interesting question. Solar activity, despite being near a maximum in the 11 year cycle, is low. The interesting thing is that the next cycle (forecast to begin roughly around 2020) is predicted to be extremely low - so low that a sunspot will be a rare event for 12-15 years (weak solar cycles are also longer). Such low cycles have historically been associated with quite significant temperature drops. So, we may in fact see flat or declining temperatures through 2035 or longer. That will be quite a shock for the alarmists if it works out that way. :-)

BTW, it may not be only lower solar irradiance that's responsible for lower temperatures, there may be other effects having to do with the solar wind and/or the solar magnetic field.

The fact is that RSS is using an older satellite for their data and may have some issues with deteriorating orbits and sensors that aren't properly accounted for.

Citation? My understanding is that RSS and UAH are two independent analyses of the same data. The relevant Wikipedia article contains no mention of such a thing...

At any rate, this chart shows the close agreement between the two datasets.

"But this one goes to eleven." -- Nigel Tufnel