Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Two opposed postions on abortion, both libertarian (Score 2) 428

If you say something about my freedom stopping at his nose, then I remind you that the baby's right to live stops at the aborter's saline injection, scraping blade, etc.

libertarians might agree that abortion should be illegal, and might not. I'll explain why:

The core of libertarian philosophy: force and fraud are not acceptable, but as long as people are free to choose, the state shouldn't intervene.

Thus a libertarian would not be in favor of the state forbidding drugs like alcohol or tobacco or marijuana. If a person chooses to use such drugs it is his/her choice.

But a libertarian would agree that murder should be illegal.

So it comes down to: is an abortion murder?

libertarians who believe that life begins at conception, and even a one-week-old embryo counts as a person, would believe that abortion is murder, and thus should be illegal.

libertarians who believe that an embryo isn't a person yet would believe that abortion should be the choice of the mother.

The question of whether an embryo is a person is not one that is decided by libertarian philosophy, and thus two people who are libertarians might have opposite opinions.

All libertarians would agree that the state should not be using tax money to fund abortions. Some libertarians think the state should be very small, and others (the "anarcho-capitalists") want no state at all; none would consider funding abortions to be a legitimate function for the state.

P.S. I read an essay by Carl Sagan where he suggested that before brain activity starts up, a fetus is not a person, but after the brain is functioning it should be considered an unborn person. IIRC he said that is about the third trimester. (Note, I did a Google search and found one web page saying brain activity starts around 25 weeks, which would be early third trimester.)

Comment Re:Uh? (Score 1) 283

It's strictly about the number of transistors on a chip.


Just because clock speeds won't go up much more with silicon technology, it doesn't mean that going from a 2D plane to 3D assemblies (with the associated heat problems, but this "low power" stuff helps with that) won't happen.

It will happen. It's "merely" an engineering and geometry problem rather than a physics problem requiring new science.


Comment Re:It's official, you all live in a Dictatorship (Score 1) 174

It's not a treaty, so nothing in it has the force of law.

It *IS* a treaty. An international agreement is a treaty, by definition. That's what treaty means.

However, it is only a legal treaty in the U.S. if it gets ratified by Congress. And we'd better hope that's not the case.

Further yet, there's the issue of whether a treaty can override internal U.S. laws. My money is on NO.

Comment Re:Excellent! (Score 1) 91

I agree in a way. 16GB of internal storage is pretty lame, unless the 64GB micro SD is seen as "native" storage.

But to keep things in perspective: Android is Java, and adds a huge amount of cruft and overhead to the underlying Linux OS. I've been wondering for a long time why we weren't seeing plain native Linux tablets, without all that Google junk.

As long as I have LibreOffice, Firefox, and a few other apps for it I'm good to go. I could wish for a more plain-Linux experience than Ubuntu, but if it has all the requisite drivers, then Ubuntu it is.

Comment Re: How is this newsworthy? (Score 2) 284

Amen! The idea of "natural rights" is a stupid one. There are no such things, precisely as you say. That's why society is important

This completely sidesteps the point. Would you rather live in a society that defines such rights as "natural rights" untouchable by government, or one that would allow government give or take away "rights" as it pleases?

Socialism, by and large, is a bad word. Even in those countries which have made a modicum of "socialism" actually work, like the Scandinavian countries, are not as "socialist" as many Americans seem to think. Look up Sweden, Denmark, and Norway in the Economic Freedom Index. In many ways they're more capitalist than the present United States.

Further, those countries have relatively small populations (smaller than many U.S. states and even some American metropolitan areas), and they have different historical social norms than the United States.

Further yet, in the 1990s, Sweden saw that even its modest amount of "socialism" was too much, and began to reverse course, moving toward LESS of a "welfare state". In the 20-some years they had been experimenting with it, they went from world's 4th per capita GDP to 14th. Now that they have further limited their taxation and "entitlement" programs, they are way back up again.

Denmark has had similar difficulties, and has taken some of the same steps toward solution (i.e., a bit back toward capitalism).

20 years ago, socialist Russia and China were dying. They were on the verge of mass starvation again. The only thing that has saved them -- and brought them back onstage as world-class economies -- was the adoption of more capitalism.

So yeah... socialism is a bad word. It has caused more misery and killed more people than capitalism ever has. Only a few countries have ever made much of it work, and even some of those have backtracked on it. Get on Twitter and ask Garry Kasparov. He'd be happy to tell you all about it.

And p-l-e-a-s-e don't try to tell me that "Democratic Socialism" is different. Tell that to the Greeks.

Comment Re:the point (Score 5, Informative) 120

The point of Docker is to have a single package ("container") that contains all of its dependencies, running in isolation from any other Docker containers. Since the container is self-contained, it can be run on any Docker host. For example, if you have some wacky old program that only runs on one particular set of library versions, it might be hard for you to get the Docker container just right to make it run; but once you do, that container will Just Work everywhere, and updating packages on the host won't break it.

The point of the news story is that someone did a better job of stripping the container down, removing libraries and such that were not true dependencies (weren't truly needed).

Not only does this make for smaller containers, but it should reduce the attack surface, by removing resources that are available inside the container. For example, if someone finds a security flaw in library libfoo, this would protect against that security flaw by removing libfoo when it is not needed. It's pretty hard for an exploit to call code in a library if the library isn't present. Also, presumably all development tools and even things like command-line shells would be stripped out. Thus a successful attacker might gain control over a docker container instance, but would have no way to escalate privileges any further.

If the stated numbers are correct (a 644 MB container went down to 29 MB) yet the new small package still works, then clearly there is a lot of unnecessary stuff in that standard 644 MB container.

Comment Re:I am wondering what would happen after 1 year (Score 4, Insightful) 573

At this point I expect that the supposed cutoff date will roll around, and then one of two things will happen:

1) They start charging whatever they're charging for it. But it won't stop being a "Recommended" update for 7 and 8.1. Meaning of course that some loser will turn updates back on or boot up a laptop that spent seven months without a battery, get updated, and suddenly find their copy of Windows 10 isn't licensed and they have a thirty day countdown. Pay up, sucker.

2) Nothing happens. It remains free. Eventually Microsoft will get around to yanking the updates, but probably not before something like option one happens. Credits to carrots the nagware will stick around though, just different. And no way are the telemetry updates getting removed.

Look deep into your heart. Which one do you think is gonna happen?

Comment Hey AMD, show us your new CPUs for 2016 (Score 5, Informative) 152

Hey, AMD, show us your new CPUs for 2016. Everything you got now is long in the tooth.

How right you are. But their basic problem has been that they were still stuck on old semiconductor fabrication processes. Intel has spent a bunch of money on fab technology and is about two generations ahead of AMD. It didn't help that their current architecture isn't great.

I'm not a semiconductor expert, but as I understand it: the thinner the traces on the semiconductor, the higher clock rate can go or the lower the power dissipation can be (those two are tradeoffs). Intel's 4th-generation CPUs were fabbed on 22 nm process, and their current CPUs are fabbed on 14 nm process. AMD has been stuck at 28 nm and is in fact still selling CPUs fabbed on a 32 nm process. It's brutal to try to compete when so far behind. But AMD is just skipping the 22 nm process and going straight to 14 nm. (Intel has 10 nm in the pipeline, planned for 2017 release, but it should be easier to compete 14 nm vs 10 nm than 32/28 nm vs 14 nm! And it took years for AMD to get to 14 nm, while there are indications that they will make the jump to 10 nm more quickly.)

But AMD is about to catch up. AMD has shown us their new CPU for 2016; its code-name is "Zen" and it will be fabbed on a 14 nm process. AMD claims the new architecture will provide 40% more instructions-per-clock than their current architecture; combined with finally getting onto a modern fab process, the Zen should be competitive with Intel's offerings. (I expect Intel to hold onto the top-performance crown, but I expect AMD will offer better performance per dollar with acceptable thermal envelope.) Wikipedia says it will be released in October 2016.

Intel is so far ahead of AMD that it's unlikely that AMD will ever take over the #1 spot, but I am at least hoping that they will hold on to a niche and serve to keep Intel in check.

The ironic thing is that Intel is currently making the best products, yet still they feel the need to cheat with dirty tricks like the Intel C Compiler's generating bad code for CPUs with a non-Intel CPUID. Also I don't like how Intel tries to segment their products into dozens of tiers to maximize money extraction. (Oh, did you want virtualization? This cheaper CPU doesn't offer that; buy this more expensive one. Oh, did you want ECC RAM? Step right up to our most expensive CPUs!)

Intel has been a very good "corporate citizen" with respect to the Linux kernel, and they make good products; but I try not to buy their products because I hate their bad behavior. I own one laptop with an Intel i7 CPU, but otherwise I'm 100% non-Intel.

I want to build a new computer and I don't want to wait for Zen so I will be buying an FX-8350 (fabbed on 32 nm process, ugh). But in 18 months or so I look forward to buying new Zen processors and building new computers.

Comment Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score 1) 507

What are you talking about?

Well, then, be specific. What specific data were you showing in that Wood for Trees graph? And why did you include UAH land only, when the others were all global? Are you claiming that was an accident? Or were you trying to make an impression?

My point was that you weren't showing the finished results of UAH, but some intermediate data before further processing. And I really don't think it takes a genius to figure that out from what I wrote.

You're link is to a beta version of UAH that has different adjustments.

It's the version they're using. It's "beta" only in the sense that they called out for constructive comments. There is a link to a discussion of it on the same page, if you're interested.

Which is right? The currently published one or the beta version?

Presumably the newer version. There is reason to think so.

Are you sure that satellite is the gold standard?

I never claimed that it was. But there are lots of very good reasons to believe they're better than current surface temperature datasets.

Are they really 'constant' and unchanging?

Why do you ask? I didn't say or even imply that they were. My comments were about your later statements:

And which of the two data sets should we use? The difference between the adjustments applied by the two teams are quite large. UAH shows MORE warming than land based measurements while RSS shows less... []

One of my points was that your graph was messed up, because you used UAH land-only, vs RSS and UAH global (including sea). Your graph was misleading, intentionally or otherwise. I questioned your honestly not because of the uncalled-for attempts at personal slams, but because based on my past experience, my guess was (is) intentionally.

It should look more like this.

The bit about "unadjusted" was intended to mean that these curves are of instrumental data, not model outputs. Before being run through much processing. So "RSS MSU lower trop. global mean" is relatively unaltered MSU data.

We get your point that some are adjusted more. That has little to do with whether particular adjustments are proper or improper.

Comment Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score 1) 507

Are you sure you're not a 911 truther?

What is a "9/11 Truther"? And what does it have to do with climate change?

Why was your reply to a comment about climate change an attempt at character assassination?

As for Dumb Sci, I've been telling him for years to stop distorting my words and misrepresenting me out-of-context. But I have to ask again: why do you ask? What does it have to do with the subject at hand? Do you have a problem just addressing the subject without insulting people who may disagree?

In fact it's rather remarkable how amazingly similar you two are in that regard. Anyway:

The UAH satellite record actually shows MORE warming than the land based measurements.

You already wrote that.

Either way, Tamino doesn't refute Christy's & Spencer validations of UAH emperature data sets.

Wrong. Tamino does make it quite clear, quite publicly that he disapproves of the adjustments made to UAH.

Shall we disregard UAH, land based measurements, tropospheric measurements, and only trust RSS?

What the hell are you talking about? I suggested no such thing. In fact I haven't any idea where that came from. It has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

He did in fact deride UAH and its adjustments recently.

Comment Re:record-shattering recording instruments (Score 2, Informative) 507

This guy doesn't seem to have an honest bone in his body.

Unadjusted UAH might... but you already said adjustments are necessary. If so, why are you showing data before adjustments? It's meaningless for proving your point. But it's great for propaganda. Further -- and this is funny -- your had to include UAH "land only" when all the others are "global"... why? My guess is precisely to mislead, because that looks the highest.

But you're not fooling people as much as you think you are.

And why not use the adjustments calculated by the team whose job it is to do so? Especially when RATPAC and other similar models very clearly exaggerate the warming by not accounting for instrumental changes (see the link in my other reply)... so why not use the clearly superior set of adjustments (Christy, Spencer et al.) which does account for discontinuities caused by the instrumentation changes?

So let's just knock off the BS, and show them what UAH actually shows for current temperatures.

No hottest year. Not even close. And remember it's only as high as it was, because of El Nino... weather, not climate.

But as weather effects go, it's a big one. And when this big El Nino goes away, we're in for La Nina. Typically 2-3 years of cooler temperatures.

I suspect Layzej, like Tamino and pals, are trying to push the "OMG hottest year ever" message now, while they have a chance, and before it cools off.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.