Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 168

by khayman80 (#47960791) Attached to: 3 Short Walking Breaks Can Reverse Harm From 3 Hours of Sitting

... What's ridiculous is your constant repetition of this bullshit idea. Yes, the cooler walls radiate inward but they have no effect whatsoever on the heat source. ALL of that radiation is reflected or scattered by the heat source. (It is not transmitted because we're dealing with diffuse gray bodies of significant mass.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-21]

It's truly surreal to watch Jane repeatedly double-down on nonsense which Jane claims is too ridiculous even for Sky Dragon Slayers (as if that were possible!).

... You took a badly-worded sentence or two and jumped on them as though Latour made a mistake. But his only mistake was wording a couple of sentences badly. He does in fact NOT suggest that warmer objects absorb no radiation, and he has written as much many times. ... You have refuted NOTHING but a couple of unfortunately-worded sentences, which Latour himself publicly corrected shortly after that post appeared. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-27]

Ironically, Jane's still insisting that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects. Otherwise Jane wouldn't repeatedly object to including a term for radiation from the chamber walls in his calculation of required electrical power. Since Jane doesn't even include that term, Jane's assuming that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects.

... shortly after Latour published that blog post, it became clear that the language he used implied that no radiation at all was absorbed by the warmer body. So a reader could not reasonably be blamed for inferring that. But Latour quickly apologized for the unfortunate wording and corrected himself to make it very clear he was referring to net, not absolute, heat transfer. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-27]

Ironically, Jane's still insisting that no radiation at all is absorbed by the warmer body. Otherwise Jane's calculation of the required electrical power would include a term for radiation from the chamber walls. Since Jane adamantly insists that this term can't be included, Jane's calculation assumes that no radiation at all is absorbed by the source. None. Zero.

Comment: Re:kill -1 (Score 2) 237

by squiggleslash (#47960039) Attached to: Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

Must admit that's news to me. Kinda fed up of the subtle changes to shell commands we've seen over the last few years especially as this one conflicts with the kill -{SIGNAL} syntax we're used to.

Either way, this sounds like a non-issue. (1) if we're routinely trying to determine how to kill EVERY CORE PROCESS ON THE SYSTEM then we have bigger fish to fry than whether init/systemd is capable of working with that.

(2) It sound scriptable to me, assuming systemd itself isn't capable of doing it. /proc should give you all the information you need.

I worry that this is the kind of concern holding back adoption of systemd. Good reasons I understand. Bad ones, that seek to blame systemd for major system problems that exist under init too, are bad.

Comment: Re:What has changed? (Score 1) 151

by Animats (#47960005) Attached to: Secret Service Critics Pounce After White House Breach

There was a time that a citizen could walk right up to the White House.

That lasted until WWII.

Until the 1980s, anyone could enter the Pentagon and wander around the corridors. (George C. Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, decided during WWII that there was no way a building with as many people as the Pentagon could keep spies out, and requiring badges would give a false sense of security.) In the 1960s, anyone could enter most Federal buildings in Washington, including the Capitol and all the House/Senate office buildings, without passing any security checkpoints.

Comment: Re:In conclusions, the iphone6 sucks! (Score 4, Interesting) 186

by ducomputergeek (#47959915) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Is iOS 8 a Pig?

As a developer it's been a problem developing for Android. It's one of the reasons why at work we charge more to develop android versions of apps usually as we'll only QA test against Nexus devices. If our clients want QA on any additional handsets basically increase the development costs by 50% per device. Usually if clients add any other devices it's will be Samsung, but we charge QA per model on Android devices. So Galaxy S4, S5, Note could double the price we charge for an Android app vs. iOS.

Personally I no longer develop apps for Android. I used to, but Android apps were less than 25% of my revenue and accounted for about 90% of my support requests. In particular "App crashes on startup" and on a handset I've never heard of before. Especially problematic seemed to be the number of prepaid android devices. Their OS's never seem to be kept current or running some tweaks that may cause compatibility issues for whatever reasons.

Comment: The President was out. The Secret Service did OK. (Score 1) 151

by Animats (#47959581) Attached to: Secret Service Critics Pounce After White House Breach

It was a Friday evening. The President had left for Camp David earlier, and his main protective detail went with him. Most staffers had gone home. The guy got just inside the outer doors, where there is a security checkpoint, before he was tackled.

The Secret Service made the right choice not shooting the intruder dead on the lawn. They certainly had the capability to kill him. They would have been heavily criticized, with pictures of the dead body on national TV.

On September 12, a man wearing a Pokemon hat and carrying a stuffed animal jumped the White House fence. He was tackled and arrested. Should he have been killed?

Comment: Re:Please describe exactly (Score 1) 319

The same thing happened to me. I'd been buying my own health insurance since I sold my company in 2011. It cost me $83 per month. I'm in my early 30's and healthy. Only time I used it was for a sinus infection and annual check ups. Deductible was $3500 with max out of pocket of $11,000. Office co-pay's were $30, $50 for urgent care and drug coverage worked well enough for me. My last antibiotics cost me $20 co-pay. Then I was informed last fall my plan was not "ACA" compliant and would be cancelled at the end of last year.

So I went shopping on the exchange. The closest plan to what I had was a silver package. It was $280 a month. 3x what I was paying. That was more than I wanted to pay. So I looked at a "Bronze" plan. Still $156 a month and eventually what I selected. It had a $6000 a year deductible and $17,000 max out of pocket per year.

Then I actually had to use it for an Urgent care visit. Under my old plan, Urgent care was a $50 visit. Well it was $90 co-pay under my new plan. I was prescribed the same antibiotics as the previous time. Cost: $45 co-pay instead of $20.

Fortunately I got married and now on my Wife's company plan (although they're likely to pay the fine as it will be cheaper than providing insurance so not sure for how much longer). It was about the same as my bronze plan (~$180 per month to add me). But coverage is a hell of a lot better.

Comment: Re:Memory doesn't cost that much. (Score 1) 229

by squiggleslash (#47958289) Attached to: Why the iPhone 6 Has the Same Base Memory As the iPhone 5

I agree Google shouldn't have omitted the SD card slot from their Nexus series. It's one of many reasons I'll never buy a Nexus device again.

Nobody here is talking about swapping SD cards constantly. What's being talked about is not caring about the capacity of the device you buy. You store apps on the device as there's more than enough space even when they have tiny amounts of memory like 16GB. You store data on one, single, micro SD card. When you run out of space on your micro SD card, you buy a bigger one and copy your data to that.

That way, upgrading your phone is just a matter of swapping the SIM and SD cards. Your data follows you. It "just works". Rather than the inordinately stupid idea, popularized by Apple and slavishly copied by Google, of copying all your data across from one device to the other, either directly, or via the cloud, all umpteen gigabytes of it. That's ridiculous, that's absurd, and manufacturers should recognize that's a massive inconvenience nobody wants.

Comment: Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 168

by khayman80 (#47957813) Attached to: 3 Short Walking Breaks Can Reverse Harm From 3 Hours of Sitting

... Repeat: this ASSUMPTION of yours that the chamber walls must be accounted for in the power requirement of the heat source is a direct violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There are no 2 ways around it. Established physics (the Stefan-Boltzmann law) says that the radiative power out (and therefore power in) of a gray body is dependent ONLY on emissivity and thermodynamic temperature. It is completely unrelated to any nearby cooler bodies. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-21]

Again, radiative power out is dependent only on emissivity and thermodynamic temperature. We don't disagree about that, despite your repetitive claims to the contrary. But "power in" through a boundary around the heat source looks like this:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Since power in = power out:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

Jane refuses to account for the chamber wall radiative "power in" which would only be true if the source didn't absorb any of that radiation. Zero.

If you are sincere (you certainly haven't been acting like you are), then you must be postulating some kind of "tractor beam" effect that allows the chamber wall to "suck" power out of the heat source from a distance. I assure you that at least at out current level of technology, we have not managed to build such a sucking device. The heat source radiates out what it radiates out, and nothing around it is "sucking" any power from it. Although you seem to be doing your very best at "sucking" my time away over stupid bullshit. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-21]

That's ridiculous, Jane. I'm just noting that the chamber walls are hotter than 0K, so they emit radiation into a boundary around the heat source. Therefore Jane's wrong to ignore that radiation when applying the principle of conservation of energy:

... Since the chamber walls are COOLER than the heat source, radiative power from the chamber walls is not absorbed by the heat source. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

It would only be valid to omit the term describing radiation from the chamber walls if the source absorbs none of that radiation at all. This would only be true if the source's absorptivity = 0. But then its emissivity = 0, so it also couldn't emit any radiation, so it couldn't be a heat source.

So the only "heat source" where we could validly ignore the radiation from the chamber walls would be a perfectly reflective "bobble" from Vernor Vinge's Marooned in Realtime. I assure you that at our current level of technology, we haven't managed to build such a device. And even if we could, it wouldn't be a heat source.

Comment: Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 168

by khayman80 (#47957481) Attached to: 3 Short Walking Breaks Can Reverse Harm From 3 Hours of Sitting

... No NET radiative energy. I did not claim "none at all", and I have repeatedly pointed this out to you. Just no NET transfer from cooler to warmer. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-20]

Jane's equation claims "none at all":

electrical power per square meter = (s)*(e)*Ta^4

Since Jane's equation for required electrical power doesn't even include a term for radiation from the chamber walls, Jane's equation wrongly says that no radiation at all is absorbed by the source. None. Zero.

It would only be valid to omit the term describing radiation from the chamber walls if the source absorbs none of that radiation at all. This would only be true if the source's absorptivity = 0. But then its emissivity = 0, so it also couldn't emit any radiation, so it couldn't be a heat source. Slayer "physics" are incoherent nonsense.

Comment: Re:Comparable? Not really. (Score 4, Informative) 102

by Animats (#47957187) Attached to: Is Alibaba Comparable To a US Company?

When someone buys a share in Apple, they actually get an ownership share in Apple.

Apple, yes. Google or Facebook, no. Google and Facebook have two classes of stock. The class with all the voting rights is in both cases controlled by the founders. The publicly traded shares cannot outvote them, even if someone bought all of them.

Until recently, multiple classes of stock were prohibited for NYSE-listed companies, which tended to discourage doing this. (The classic exception was Ford, which has two classes of stock, the voting shares controlled by the Ford family. This predates that NYSE rule.)

This matters when the insiders make a big mistake and the stock starts going down. There's no way to kick them out.

Comment: He's not actually interested (Score 1) 121

by Sycraft-fu (#47956881) Attached to: NVIDIA Launches Maxwell-Based GeForce GTX 980 and GeForce GTX 970 GPUs

It is AMD fanboy sour grapes. For some reason some people get really personally invested in their choice of graphics card. So when the other company comes out with a card that is substantially better than what their company has, they get all ass hurt and start trying to make excuses as to what it is bad. The nVidia fans did that back when the AMD 5870 came out and nVidia had no response. Same deal here. The GeForce 900 series are a reasonable bit faster than the AMD 200 series, and way more power efficient. At this time, AMD doesn't have a response, so the AMD fanboys are going on the defensive.

The real answer is, of course, buy the card that works best for your usage, which will vary person to person.

Comment: Crash not computer-related (Score 5, Informative) 148

by Animats (#47955905) Attached to: Washington DC To Return To Automatic Metro Trains

The Red Line crash was not computer-related. The signalling system for the Washington Metro is a classic electromechanical relay-based system. Just like the New York subways. The Red Line crash was caused by a failure of a track circuit for detecting trains, trackside equipment using an audio-frequency signal sent through the rails and shorted to the other rail by the train's wheels. All those components are pre-computer technology.

As with most railway systems, manual driving isn't enough to prevent collisions, because stopping distances are often longer than visual distances. That was the case here.

The Washington Metro had been sloppy about maintenance of trackside equipment. They do have a central computer system, and it logs what the relay-based signal systems are doing, although it can't override them. They had logs of previous failures, and should have fixed the problem.

Comment: Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer (Score 1) 168

by khayman80 (#47955263) Attached to: 3 Short Walking Breaks Can Reverse Harm From 3 Hours of Sitting

... Before that it can't, because Ta^4 - Tb^4 is a positive number so no net radiant energy is absorbed by (a) from (b). That means all the way up to the exact point thermal equilibrium is achieved, all radiant power is a result of electrical power, therefore the power input and power output are constant. It is not a "gradual" process. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-20]

So Jane claims:

electrical power per square meter = (s)*(e)*Ta^4

The actual answer is:

electrical power per square meter = (s)*(e)*(Ta^4 - Tb^4)

Since Jane refuses to include a term accounting for radiation from the chamber walls, Jane's equation is saying that no radiation at all is absorbed by the warmer source. Why?

... Since the chamber walls are COOLER than the heat source, radiative power from the chamber walls is not absorbed by the heat source. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

Of course it is! Again, this is just Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. Absorption doesn't work like Slayers imagine. It's controlled by the surface's absorptivity, which doesn't change if the source is slightly warmer or cooler than its surroundings. All that's required for the source to absorb radiation (from warmer or colder objects) is having absorptivity > 0. Since the source has absorptivity = 0.11, some radiative power from the chamber walls is absorbed by the heat source.

Jane's been regurgitating Slayer nonsense for years:

... Warmer objects cannot, and do not absorb lower-energy radiation from cooler objects. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-20]

Then how do uncooled IR detectors see cooler objects? How did we detect the 2.7K cosmic microwave background radiation with warmer detectors?

... explain how radiation that is of a LOWER "black-body temperature" will be absorbed by a body of a HIGHER black-body temperature. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-30]

... An object that is radiating at a certain black-body temperature WILL NOT absorb a less-energetic photon from an outside source. This is am extremely well-known corollary of the Second Law. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-30]

No, that's a Slayer fantasy. On the atomic scale, absorption of radiation doesn't depend on temperature because individual atoms don't have temperatures. Only very large groups of atoms have temperatures. Individual photons also don't have temperatures. Very large groups of photons from a 10C warm object have slightly different average wavelength curves than a -10C cold object, but they're very similar. This means that even if temperature somehow applied at the atomic scale of absorbing individual photons, an atom couldn't tell if a photon came from the 10C warm object or the -10C cold object.

... You took a badly-worded sentence or two and jumped on them as though Latour made a mistake. But his only mistake was wording a couple of sentences badly. He does in fact NOT suggest that warmer objects absorb no radiation, and he has written as much many times. ... You have refuted NOTHING but a couple of unfortunately-worded sentences, which Latour himself publicly corrected shortly after that post appeared. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-27]

Ironically, Jane's still insisting that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects. Otherwise Jane wouldn't repeatedly object to including a term for radiation from the chamber walls in his calculation of required electrical power. Since Jane doesn't even include that term, Jane's assuming that warmer objects absorb no radiation from colder objects.

... shortly after Latour published that blog post, it became clear that the language he used implied that no radiation at all was absorbed by the warmer body. So a reader could not reasonably be blamed for inferring that. But Latour quickly apologized for the unfortunate wording and corrected himself to make it very clear he was referring to net, not absolute, heat transfer. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-27]

Ironically, Jane's still insisting that no radiation at all is absorbed by the warmer body. Otherwise Jane's calculation of the required electrical power would include a term for radiation from the chamber walls. Since Jane adamantly insists that this term can't be included, Jane's calculation assumes that no radiation at all is absorbed by the source. None. Zero.

It's truly surreal to watch Jane repeatedly double-down on nonsense which Jane claims is too ridiculous even for Sky Dragon Slayers (as if that were possible!).

"Pull the wool over your own eyes!" -- J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

Working...