Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:No data, so choose your favorite villain (Score 1) 217

by Black Parrot (#47716527) Attached to: Scientists Baffled By Unknown Source of Ozone-Depleting Chemical

Any chance to pin that on the content mafia or patent trolls? C'mon, at least ONCE such a story has to hit someone we can uniformly hate and not be controversial.

So long as you don't blame it on Tesla, Bitcoin, or Starts with a Bang, everyone here will cool with it.

Comment: How Linux wins the Desktop (Score 2) 525

by Pathway (#47716401) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

How Linux wins the Desktop

1. We need a "Default". Not necessarily a default Distro, but a set of standards that all distros can follow. Of course, other options will be allowed, even encouraged. Rationale: We need the "fragmentation" problem to be addressed, and I would suggest that a good start would to have a standard interface that is common across all of "Linux".

2. We need an easy way to manage a large group of computers. Large or small, businesses and schools want to make the configuration of their computers easy. Examples: Mass deploy Chrome. Setup a lab of computers to use a single printer. Setup logins with permissions and shared home folders. Rationale: These features are easy to configure on Windows and Mac OS X, but not so easy on Linux.

3. Easy Deployment. There needs to be a scriptable deployment that can mass install Linux onto multiple computers easily, including initial setup and joining of whatever management system is being used. While "image based" deployment can work, native installation deployment with configuration would be better. Rationale: If it is going to compete against Windows and Mac OS X, it has to be as easy to deploy.

I'm sure there are some projects that already fill some of these needs... but it's not there yet.

Comment: Re:Huge bird and fish kills (Score 1) 442

by LWATCDR (#47713699) Attached to: Solar Plant Sets Birds On Fire As They Fly Overhead

I saw no proof limited data provided that proves it was radiation. In fact that difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima seems to indicate it is not the radiation.
Even if it is you are comparing the damaged caused by a massive natural disaster vs a normally operating solar plant. Also that failure mod is impossible with a modern 4g reactor.

Comment: Re:Huge bird and fish kills (Score 1) 442

by LWATCDR (#47713035) Attached to: Solar Plant Sets Birds On Fire As They Fly Overhead

Sigh... No the fish kills are from all power plants. The riverkeeper post never mentions nuclear at all.

As to the bird population drop... It actually does not make any sense that it is from radiation. It says the number of birds counted is down. Massive flooding of the habitat by salt water could very well be the reason. The paper is behind a paywall so their is no way for me to read it but it seems to just count the number of birds in the area. If radiation was the cause then it would make more sense for Chernobyl to have a lower bird count since it had and has a much higher level of radiation. It does not.
So a human researcher goes to a location with elevated radiation and suffered massive flooding to count birds. The count is lower and the researcher has a hypothesis that radiation would decrease the bird count... Conclusion it is the radiation.

Comment: Good story to have on slashdot. (Score 3, Interesting) 25

I would love to see Slashdot cover more FOSS end user apps "Besides OO.org, and LibreOffice" releases. It would also be interesting to see some "cool projects just starting" stories to get developers interested in contributing.
I would love to see sections for dev tools, libraries, and frameworks but I am not sure that their is enough interest in those on Slashdot.
 

Comment: Re:Microsoft (Score 1) 565

by HiThere (#47709719) Attached to: Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft

O, as long as it's properly licensed I like it fine. I just don't trust it, and don't need to use it. So I don't.

As for the three examples you gave....
that's the first time I've heard of any of them. If I had heard of them I wouldn't have trusted them, though, so it's no loss to me. (Did they license the use to all patents they may have included in that softtware to any derivitive software? The last time I looked at one of their "open source" projects that had unaccountably failed to do that.)

Comment: Re:This actually makes perfect sense. (Score 3, Informative) 112

by hey! (#47708377) Attached to: Scientists Find Traces of Sea Plankton On ISS Surface

Except water vapor is the gaseous form of water; the plankton would have to be transported on individual molecules of water to reach the ionosphere.

If plankton were transportable in microscopic *droplets* in the troposphere as you suggest, a more plausible explanation is that the equipment was contaminated -- both the station itself and the gear used to test it.

Comment: Re:Trust, but verify (Score 1) 166

I disagree. It means trust but don't rely entirely on trust when you have other means at your disposal.

Consider a business deal. You take the contract to your lawyer and he puts all kinds of CYA stuff that supposedly protects you against bad faith. But let me tell you: if the other guy is dealing in bad faith you're going to regret getting mixed up with him, even if you've got the best lawyer in the world working on the contract. So you should only do critical deals with parties you trust.

But if the deal is critical, you should still bring the lawyer in. Why? Because situtations change. Ownership and management change. Stuff can look different when stuff doesn't go the way everyone hoped. People can act differently under pressure. Other people working at the other company might not be as trustworthy as the folks sitting across the table from you. All kinds of reasons.

So you trust, but verify that the other party can't stab you in the back, because neither method is 100% effective. It's common sense in business, and people usually don't take it personally. When they *do*, then that's kind of fishy in my opinion.

Comment: Re:Depleted Uranium? (Score 1) 60

by Grog6 (#47708035) Attached to: Modular Hive Homes Win Mars Base Design Competition

Yeah, this caught my eye as well. :)

How much fuel does it take to put a kg of DU on Mars? I would bet it's substantial.

Not only do you have to get it off Earth, You have to slow it down at the end of the trip, unless you want to dig it up and recast it, lol.
"Shielding Shipped Separately." :)

Not to mention the fact that a solid foot of DU won't "stop" Cosmics; I see ~4V pulses, ~1 per minute most times on systems that see a 511kev pulse at about 200mV. Dealing with that is an important part of a design, lol.

That's just the amount of energy it was able to dump in my detector after going thru a foot or so of lead; it kept going. :)

Successful and fortunate crime is called virtue. - Seneca

Working...