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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Many DDR3 modules? (Score 1) 129

by MightyYar (#48672509) Attached to: Many DDR3 Modules Vulnerable To Bit Rot By a Simple Program

Perhaps you can measure things on a scope, but that doesn't mean the difference is perceptible. It's not my money, so I don't really care what audiophiles do with it - but they also seem to expect me to be impressed, which I am not. I politely nod but honestly think they are just burning their money. I can't take someone seriously who thinks that oxygen makes a perceptible difference in audio, and then think nothing of using stranded wire vs. solid. Even with an oscilloscope, the stranded vs. solid will be a much bigger difference than the 97% vs 99.99% copper. And by "much bigger", I mean "still not perceptible".

I know a guy who does installs. He tells many stories, but I like this one: He ran out of super-expensive speaker wire specified by one customer. He temporarily finished the job with landscaping wire, of all things. It was the proper gauge and everything, but cheap stuff that he uses for outdoor installs (which unbelievable people insist on having fancy cable for! Shut those birds up, would you?). He came back later (when the specified wire came in) and told the customer what he needed to do. They guy, completely oblivious to the "problem", was horrified. Just horrified! He had been quite happy with the new system, but now noted that certain things do indeed sound wrong... the brain is an amazing machine.

Comment: Re:Many DDR3 modules? (Score 1) 129

by MightyYar (#48670135) Attached to: Many DDR3 Modules Vulnerable To Bit Rot By a Simple Program

I've seen nonsense about inductance and capacitance. And then it'll be stranded. Oy.

Most people are using it to make a permanent connection in their homes with stranded wire... so endurance, fatigue, corrosion are all non-issues. I would wager a very high sum of money that double-blind testing would result in no perceptible difference.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 718

by MightyYar (#48652421) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

I don't want to oversimplify, but it is quite reasonable - and to me not overly "complex" - to postulate that the models do not properly account for ocean dynamics. It is entirely possible that every single model has it all completely wrong - we've been here before with "global cooling". But back then the models weren't very robust, and you actually had competing models with wildly different predictions.

Perhaps I'm more comfortable rolling with the science because the science doesn't threaten my ideology. I fully accept that we are probably warming the planet, but I also don't think that humanity will stop burning easy energy resources. As a result, I'd like to see the models applied to planning for the inevitable instead of a Quotidian quest to stop using fossil fuels. We're going to need to do a cost-benefit on things like seawalls for major coastal cities, flood control, and irrigation systems, and I think the models can provide valuable insight.

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 718

by MightyYar (#48639667) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

I'm sure the points in there are good, but I need to point out that while it is a "peer reviewed journal", you linked to something from the "Opinion & Comment" section. There is quite a bit of work being done to understand where all of the heat is going, but that has been discussed on here before.

Comment: Re:Sure (Score 1) 718

by MightyYar (#48639251) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'

Well, looking up the thread, you are an expert in talking completely past a person, I'll give you that.

I mention that there is no such thing as a model which supports anti-AGW, and you retort that the "experts" are producing biased models. I used my highly advanced deductive reasoning to assume that you meant that the models not supporting the anti-AGW argument, which would of course be all of them. Obviously you only meant SOME of them. How silly of me. Please accept my most sincere apologies and may the Festivus spirit fill you.

FORTRAN rots the brain. -- John McQuillin

Working...