Forgot your password?

Comment: Sexist? (Score 1) 46

by SuperKendall (#48446357) Attached to: 2014 Hour of Code: Do Ends Justify Disney Product Placement Means?

Have you ever talked to a little girl? Saying that having to Frozen characters involved might interest more little girls is not sexism, it's the most common of sense.

People like you say you want more women in coding but don't want to do anything real to make it happen, at the level it needs to happen - early education.

Comment: When cars are self-driving and shared (Score 1) 304

by Animats (#48445261) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars

...they'll all be owned by Uber.

There's a network effect for shared vehicles. Availablility is best if you have one big pool of cars rather than lots of little ones. So there will be a single winner in that space for each city.

Imagine Uber having the power of GM and Google combined. Run by the current team of assholes.

Comment: Not easy to go nuclear, though it's the answer (Score 1) 77

by SuperKendall (#48444737) Attached to: Prospects Rise For a 2015 UN Climate Deal, But Likely To Be Weak

It would be easier to get everyone to agree to switch to nuclear energy than to agree to meaningful limits on CO2 emissions

Even though going nuclear is the only practical solution, I don't think it's any easier - you have decades of people devoted to scaring people about anything nuclear, and those groups are still around piping that tune - even to the clear detriment of the earth and environment. They just are too afraid to do anything else.

even in countries that actually want to do something about CO2 (like Germany) are switching away from nuclear, so that tells you how hard the problem is.

Exactly my point, if even GERMANS can't be rational about this there is no hope for anyone.

Comment: Re:Amazon Elastic Cloud? (Score 1) 233

by Animats (#48439281) Attached to: Does Being First Still Matter In America?

decades ago, Cray Computers were assembled by people (housewives) who were allowed to spend no more time than they could be maximally effective in, using wires cut to millimeter-precise lengths.

Yes, and there's a Cray I at the Computer Museum here in Silicon Valley, upholstered base and all. You can sit on it if you like. It's not useful for much else.

All modern supercomputers are composed of a large number of microprocessors. The interconnects are faster than with ordinary hosting/cloud operations, but the CPUs are the same. The biggest supercomputer in the world, in China, is 3,120,000 cores of Intel Xeons, running at 2.2GHz each.

The question is whether the problem you're solving needs tight interconnection. If not, you can run it on a large number of ordinary computers. Weather may not be that tightly coupled; propagation time in air is kind of slow.

Comment: Re:What do they spend the money on? (Score 1) 149

by jmv (#48438727) Attached to: Mozilla's 2013 Report: Revenue Up 1% To $314M; 90% From Google

Yes, browsers have indeed become so complicated. It's not just Mozilla, Google's putting even more resources on Chrome than what Mozilla can afford. A browser is now essentially an operating system (see FirefoxOS) that can do pretty much everything *and* needs to do it in a way that's secure against untrusted code (JS). On top of that, Mozilla is involved in projects that reach beyond just the web, like the Opus audio codec and the Daala video codec that I'm personally involved in (there's many more of course).

Comment: Not going well is right, not the way you think (Score 1) 326

We've been conducting a geo-engineering experiment by increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere and, so far, it isn't going well.

You're right. As an experiment to show CO2 causes warming it totally has sucked, because it shows in fact the opposite - over a decade without warming even as CO2 emissions continue to increase.

It's quite obvious at this point temperature changes have very little correlation to CO2 added to the atmosphere. Which was only logical one you realized what a tiny part of the atmosphere CO2 really is... so our percentage increases of it add little in terms of absolute amounts.

Comment: Wrong, moisture comes from evaporation. (Score 1) 326

You are assuming that a warming climate is more helpful, but you could have a warm dry desert

Wrong. A warmer climate releases more moisture into the atmosphere from the oceans, which winds up on land. You always have a net positive effect on moisture...

This has also been noted in explanations of why snowfall amounts are up in some areas.

Deserts are the result of specific weather patterns not allowing moisture to flow to a region, but it always goes somewhere...

We also have proof of this simple fact, the medieval warm period was a fair amount warmer than we are now, and it was in fact a great time for agriculture.

Lastly, you are again ignoring jungles which are as hot as deserts... you seem to think that a great amount of heat automatically means desert which is very far from the truth.

But the most rise we are predicted to see anyway is about 2-3C.

Comment: Err on the side of warmth (Score 0) 326

If the climate were generally cooling, I'd agree with the thought we need to figure out how to stop or slow it.

But a warming climate? That has far more helpful benefits than downsides for life in general and biodiversity across the planet. You have only to look at the jungle compared to that arctic to realize that...

So please do NOT screw up whatever warming process is underway and move us to a cooling phase.

Comment: Re:Global warming is bunk anyway. (Score 0, Troll) 326

It's only "warming" in the sense of a global average

Which also has not been warming either for the past decade or so. :-)

For which, there are a lot of excuses but not much warming... all that time CO2 has continue to increase so obviously what temperature changes there are, is disconnected from CO2.

Comment: Re:innovation thwarted (Score 1) 132

by SuperKendall (#48435499) Attached to: Aereo Files For Bankruptcy

They were taking OTA signals and retransmitting them across the internet for profit without paying the broadcaster a dime.

I could do that myself legally (I do so all the time, recording over the air signals and replaying them later on other devices), so why couldn't I pay someone to put an antenna somewhere for me?

The key was they really did have one antenna per customer, so it was exactly that - an antenna rental.

So why do YOU see anything wrong with that?

Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code. -- Dave Olson