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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Wildly premature question (Score 1) 79

by Bruce Perens (#48620117) Attached to: SpaceX To Attempt Falcon 9 Landing On Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship

If we look at jet aircraft, wear depends on the airframe and the engines, and the airframe seems to be the number of pressurize/depressurize cycles as well as the running hours. Engines get swapped out routinely but when the airframe has enough stress it's time to retire the aircraft lest it suffer catastrophic failure. Rockets are different in scale (much greater stresses) but we can expect the failure points due to age to be those two, with the addition of one main rocket-specific failure point: cryogenic tanks.

How long each will be reliable can be established using ground-based environmental testing. Nobody has the numbers for Falcon 9R yet.

Weight vs. reusable life will become a design decision in rocket design.

Comment: Because, well, it is unrealistic... (Score 1) 574

by OmniGeek (#48508685) Attached to: Hawking Warns Strong AI Could Threaten Humanity

It might be as simple as the AI saying, "Hey, here's a cool new device I think we should make." It could provide the schematics of a device that would seem to do one thing, but if we're incapable of understanding how the device works, there might be some entirely different purpose.

Vernor Vinge dealt with this topic rather convincingly with the Blight in "A Fire Upon The Deep".

The great stumbling block to any such possibility (aside from the immense improbability of our being able to develop a self-aware machine in the first place) is that we haven't developed computing hardware capable of remaining operational for very long without ongoing maintenance and a reliable supply of electric power. Any AI dependent on these resources would be utterly dependent on human goodwill for its continued existence. Reboot the poor sod and "it's a whole new world for ducks every day." Even the hypothetical Trojan-horse devices suggested by a Blight intelligence would be subject to the same limitations. Not exactly global conquest material.

Comment: Wikipedia the vector (Score 1) 61

by Bruce Perens (#48386659) Attached to: Researchers Forecast the Spread of Diseases Using Wikipedia

Like others I found the headline confusing. I read it as "Researchers are predicting the use of Wikipedia as a vector for the spread of disease". This may mean that:

  • Disinformation and ignorance are diseases.
  • Memes and computer viruses are diseases.
  • Wilipedia contains information that leads to depression.
  • Instructions on Wikipedia lead to substance abuse.
  • This is getting entertaining, fill in your own reason here.

Comment: Re:Been over this too (Score 1) 332

by David Jao (#48384691) Attached to: Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years
Yes, we certainly have been over this. All the windmills in the world amount to 4% of worldwide electricity output. How much more can we get? Not every place with people has year-round wind. So you need serious investment in transmission and storage, areas which are currently already strained under existing load. Can it be done? Unproven.

Comment: Re:That's even worse! (Score 1) 332

by David Jao (#48380595) Attached to: Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years
We've been over this. Cordemais produces at most 22.8 TWh per year assuming year-round 100% production with zero downtime. The 2006 report, page 9, exact same table, lists 60.5 TWh of coal-based production for the year 2006. Do I need to belabor the obvious and point out that 22.8 is less than 60.5? Cordemais alone does not produce more power than what the report claims for coal power stations. Give it up already, you're just flat-out wrong.

Comment: Re: Compromise combos don't work (Score 1) 219

by David Jao (#48377085) Attached to: Microsoft Losing the School Markets To iPads and Chromebooks
I think you vastly overestimate how many x86 apps can be rebuilt. Even Intel itself has to go to absurd lengths to engineer bug-for-bug binary compatibility into successive generations of x86 chips, precisely because it's so hard to get the industry to recompile. People always complain about Linux because it lacks Photoshop ... well, where is Photoshop for ARM? You speak of servers; where is Oracle's database software for ARM?

It's also not clear if Intel can succeed in making x86 chips save power. At least they're really trying now, which is more than they were doing before. But all that x86 instruction set baggage really bites them. It's something they can ignore in the server arena, but low-power is a different beast. Now I'm not saying they can't do it; Intel has great people and they do great things when they really try. But it will be hard.

Comment: Re: Compromise combos don't work (Score 1) 219

by David Jao (#48376355) Attached to: Microsoft Losing the School Markets To iPads and Chromebooks
The only problem is that Windows RT is doomed. Windows is far too dependent on x86 compatibility. If it can't run existing legacy Windows programs, then for most people there's no point. Without backward compatibility, you'll have to switch over to completely new software anyway, and by that point for the vast majority of people an iPad is a more attractive proposition.

Comment: Re: Nonsense (Score 1) 219

by David Jao (#48376335) Attached to: Microsoft Losing the School Markets To iPads and Chromebooks
I'll go one further. The real cost is not licensing, and it is not CALs. Everyone knows the real cost is LIABILITY. Horror stories abound of BSA licensing audits gone amok. Funny how Microsoft's Total Cost of Ownership studies always ignore the cost of license compliance, and always ignore the risk of multi-million dollar BSA penalties for even the most minor infractions.

I avoid all non-free software from BSA member organizations. If the BSA comes knocking, they get the door slammed on them until they come back with a court-issued warrant.

Comment: Re: So numerology trumps reality? (Score 1) 332

by David Jao (#48376289) Attached to: Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years
Worthless? Blatant lie. Where did I say wind was worthless? Quote me please.

You will fail. I never said wind was worthless. Even a computer could do this. Hint: Ctrl-F.

I never even said anything that could be interpreted as equivalent to saying wind was worthless. Again, if you think otherwise, quote me. Go ahead.

Wind power today is 4% of global electricity production. This amount is worthwhile, but NOT A COMPLETE SOLUTION, and whether or not wind can go much beyond present production remains unproven. What part of this complex sentence do you not understand?

Comment: Re:That's even worse! (Score 1) 332

by David Jao (#48376273) Attached to: Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years
The 2006 report says exactly what I said it says, and you know full well that it does.

Since you can read French, I direct your attention to page 9 from the 2006 report.

Production totale brute d’électricité (2006): 450.2 TWh (Nucléaire)
Total: 574.5 TWh

In percentage terms: 78.4%

Stop it with the outright falsehoods. I am right.

Comment: Re: So numerology trumps reality? (Score 1) 332

by David Jao (#48367397) Attached to: Denmark Plans To Be Coal-Free In 10 Years
Wow, more accusations. If you want to get all accusatory, let's take you to task for YOUR lies:

1. I can read French very well, thank you very much. Lie.

2. I have no idea what Party you keep referring to. I do not live in Russia. I do not live in the USA. I do not live in Europe. I cannot debate straw men. Identify "The Party" to which you refer if you want me to comment intelligently on this bogeyman.

3. I am no longer committing any deceptions, yet you still have not rebutted in any way the fundamental argument that nuclear power has a far higher output ceiling than wind, all the meanwhile accusing me of lying. Stop grasping at past straw men.

4. "As for the name calling, you've been doing either all of it or pretty damned close to all of it." Direct quote from you. Blatant lie, and you got called out on it hard. Note: arguing that your name-calling was justified does not mean your name-calling never happened.

5. "I very much doubt 75% is the case apart from a absolute yearly maximum" Direct quote from you, which you have still not yet unambiguously repudiated.

Stop attacking me and give me a good reason why we should not pursue nuclear power more than wind power. All I hear is crickets so far.

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...