Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I blame Microsoft (Score 1) 93

by amorsen (#48632005) Attached to: Critical Git Security Vulnerability Announced

do you feel it's a good thing for something.dat and Something.dat to reference two different files? Because that would never confuse users, right?

Case sensitivity is locale-dependent. If the user is bilingual, the file system then has to guess which language the user is thinking in when opening files.

Comment: Re:Why not push toward collapse? (Score 1) 409

by amorsen (#48621263) Attached to: In Breakthrough, US and Cuba To Resume Diplomatic Relations

They were a truly great people and culture who were light years ahead of this disgusting and degenerate "progressive"/Jewish multiculturalist tyranny we find ourselves subjected to.

You missed the memo. You people are supposed to be on the Jewish side against Islam now.

Comment: Re:Why not push toward collapse? (Score 3, Informative) 409

by amorsen (#48619129) Attached to: In Breakthrough, US and Cuba To Resume Diplomatic Relations

Well, Iraq was pushed to collapse. That did not go so well. Syria was pushed to collapse. Not ideal either.

Burma/Myanmar was not pushed to collapse, and instead relations were softened. That is going fairly well.

I am not sure the push-to-collapse strategy has any successes to its name. Well possibly Germany 1945.

Comment: Re:Sad that the far left screws this up. (Score 1) 386

by amorsen (#48595539) Attached to: The Shale Boom Won't Stop Climate Change; It Could Make It Worse

A nuclear reactor has a life span in decades, and needs more than a decade to pay itself back. There is no way anyone is going to make that investment when the business case involves something as speculative as tar sand. Tar sand is barely profitable now, who knows what it will be like in 2 or 5 years, never mind the 20+ you need to justify building a reactor.

Comment: Re:Sad that the far left screws this up. (Score 1) 386

by amorsen (#48592417) Attached to: The Shale Boom Won't Stop Climate Change; It Could Make It Worse

So the master plan is to force producers to burn more fuel in the course of providing fuel so that consumers will burn less fuel?

More or less, yes. An actual extraction tax which would provide revenue (and replace harmful wage taxes) would be infinitely preferable, of course. However that is not on the table,

Comment: Re:Sad that the far left screws this up. (Score 1) 386

by amorsen (#48592363) Attached to: The Shale Boom Won't Stop Climate Change; It Could Make It Worse

The difficulty of transporting oil away from the tar sands works as a tax on that oil. A tax which is applied right at the production of the worst kind of fossil fuel we currently have. Keystone XL will remove most of that tax. As it is, tar sand oil is right on the cusp of being economical, and therefore lowering the costs is going to increase production a lot.

Comment: Re:This whole issue is like watching... (Score 1) 386

by amorsen (#48592351) Attached to: The Shale Boom Won't Stop Climate Change; It Could Make It Worse

Your solutions must be cost neutral or very nearly cost neutral or must be cheaper then existing models.

If you want to keep the system active and you really have no choice here... then you're going to have to play the game. Learn the rules or lose.

What if the set of cost neutral solutions is empty?

Comment: Re:Nukes Now (Score 1) 386

by amorsen (#48592349) Attached to: The Shale Boom Won't Stop Climate Change; It Could Make It Worse

No other technology - not solar, not wind, not whatever green scheme you dream up - can produce electricity on a large scale.

This is not true. Both solar and wind can scale as far as you want. There are few places where at least one is not an option, and both can generate way more energy than the world uses (particularly solar).

Given the current construction times for nuclear reactors in the West which approaches a couple of decades from proposal to first production, nuclear is likely to be too little, too late. But by all means, build some nuclear power plants. Particularly if you are in a country which is fucked when it comes to solar and wind, like England.

Comment: Re:Well DUH, You can't stop piracy. (Score 1) 112

by amorsen (#48588059) Attached to: IsoHunt Unofficially Resurrects the Pirate Bay

How bits have to change before it is no longer infringing?

Copyright does not work like that. If you AES encrypt something and end up with Star Wars, you are completely in the clear. Your copy of Star Wars is not copyrighted, because it is not a copy of Star Wars, it is just a bunch of random bits that showed up.

Is it the data that is infringing, or how I created it?

The latter.

So am I going to get sued because these 30 billion bits, manipulated in one specific way, could become Star Wars?

Yes.

Comment: Re:We'd have less of this with better sound reprod (Score 1) 243

by amorsen (#48576967) Attached to: Excuse Me While I Kiss This Guy: The Science of Misheard Song Lyrics

And if you do an A/B test, most "people" can't tell the difference between Coke or Pepsi. These are not smart people.

Limiting sales to smart people is not going to get the record company execs any yachts.

Automatic gain adjustment based on proper human hearing models would limit the volume of the range compressed songs, even the peaks. I.e. non-compressed songs would be allowed higher peak volume.

Comment: Re:We'd have less of this with better sound reprod (Score 1) 243

by amorsen (#48573923) Attached to: Excuse Me While I Kiss This Guy: The Science of Misheard Song Lyrics

If you do an A B X test, people will consistently prefer loud over quiet, even if the volume difference is small. People still listen to songs on the radio, and if your song is not loud enough, it will not get popular.

This could be trivially avoided if the radio stations did automatic gain adjustment based on a proper model of how humans perceive sound.

When you don't know what you are doing, do it neatly.

Working...