Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Too bad this didn't happen in 50 years (Score 1) 44

by bobbied (#47531599) Attached to: Comet To Make Close Call With Mars

Can't argue with that... Personally, I think that funding fusion research is something we should be doing instead of messing around with tax credits for windmills and solar panels. Where I don't figure the "We are almost there!" press is true either, it *could* be if we really put some resources into this research and development and where I'm not foolish enough to think having a working fusion plant would be the end all be all of energy production, it sure would be a step in the right direction.

Comment: Re:Can I go anywhere useful yet? (Score 2) 120

Driving an EV around town is all well and good, but until they can do big trips, they'll just be a curiosity.

Oh come on.. I'm no EV advocate, but they have their place and driving around town is that place. You just plug it in when you get home each time. For commuters, which is actually the BULK of the miles I put on my cars, and EV that can reliably do 200 miles on a charge in real world conditions and recharge over night would work for me just fine. I own two (soon to be three) vehicles, so why not have an EV in the stable if it was actually cost effective? I wouldn't mind. When hitting the long road, the EV would stay parked at home. I'd just use it as a commuter car.

The problem with EV's is only partially range and recharge times, their real problem is cost. They are REALLY expensive to buy and operate. So much so that a standard gasoline powered car works out to be cheaper for most of us overall.

Comment: Re:Too bad this didn't happen in 50 years (Score 1) 44

by bobbied (#47531047) Attached to: Comet To Make Close Call With Mars

If this happened (optimistically) 50 years from now, we'd be able to deflect the comet to HIT mars, thus delivering a lot of water and warming things up a bit. (Only, I'm afraid, a little bit of terraforming, it would probably take thousands of such comet strikes to make the planet "habitable").

The problem with doing this to Mars is that it has a very small magnetic field to protect it and radiation pretty much streams in to the surface unfiltered. Where it would help to add water and gases to the atmosphere, without a magnetic field to protect it, these would eventually be stripped away by the solar wind and you'd be back to square one.

Then there is the technical problems involved in figuring out how you can get enough of a push on some unknown constantly changing mass of ice and dust to make the necessary corrections to get the thing to actually impact Mars and not just do a really close flyby. Such things are very difficult, and given the really short time frames between "Oh, I see something coming" and "It's here!" would only make that worse. There's nothing like hurrying rocket science to ruin your day.

Comment: Re:Too bad this didn't happen in 50 years (Score 1) 44

by bobbied (#47530981) Attached to: Comet To Make Close Call With Mars

We have fusion now... We can start a fusion reaction pretty much whenever we want. The problem is we cannot create a sustained fusion reaction that nets us industrial levels of energy and do it in a cost effective way.

What the fusion problem really becomes is a materials and technique question. How do you safely sustain a fusion reaction long enough in some kind of container so you can collect the excess energy it creates without having to replace the expensive container too often. So we have a containment question which leads to materials questions and a whole lot of complex industrial scale engineering questions.

Comment: An old Colorado Saying about water applies here: (Score 3, Insightful) 368

by bobbied (#47526465) Attached to: Western US States Using Up Ground Water At an Alarming Rate

Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting.

This applies to all of the southwest and a lot of the plains. Land is useless for anything but energy production without a supply of water, so you drink your whiskey and fight over the water. This has been true for centuries and will continue to be true for many more.

Comment: Re:Transpaerncy (Score 1) 37

by bobbied (#47522263) Attached to: FCC Reminds ISPs That They Can Be Fined For Lacking Transparency

Lots of talk about from that from this Administration , that but it's all very opaque from the President on down.

They DO claim that "This Is The Most Transparent Administration In History." Problem is that it is only enforcing this transparency on others.

Well, to be fair, it's pretty obvious what "transparency" means to them. It's obviously a "You show me yours!" without any "I'll show you mine" kind of transparency. But being obvious what they are up to, it's "transparency" in a opaque sort of way...

Comment: Re:Biden is talking coding?? (Score 3, Insightful) 223

by bobbied (#47519037) Attached to: VP Biden Briefs US Governors On H-1B Visas, IT, and Coding

Joe Biden knows less about coding than my daughter.

He knows less about coding than my Grandma who just now figured out this touch tone dialing thingy... (Forget the cell phone and that pesky "send" button..)

Hell, he probably knows less about coding than he knows about guns...

That's not saying much... Biden generally knows nothing (or perhaps cannot remember anything) about guns or any other subject he goes into public to talk about. He's an old guy who has lied for a living so long he knows no other way, and now he's loosing what was left of his mind and is struggling to keep his story straight enough to get though the current speech without contradicting himself twice in the same paragraph.

I'll say this, Biden is the one major reason I'd never support impeachment of Obama and why I pray he stays alive well past 2016. Biden is off his rocker and off the rails and he cannot remember from one moment to the next what he's said. We are better off with the current president than Biden, maybe not much, but enough I'm not willing to risk Biden.

Comment: Re:64.99%, 84.38%, Really? (Score 2) 89

by bobbied (#47509913) Attached to: Researchers Test Developer Biometrics To Predict Buggy Code

They tested 16 developers and gave statistics with four significant figures. I think you would need to test at least 100,000,000 developers to get such precise measurements. Who do they think they are? Dr. Spock on Star Trek?

Naw, they just used a really accurate ruler, made each measurement 10 times and averaged their results...

You make an excellent point. There is no indication in the fine article about how accurate their results could be statistically, and given their really small sample size it doesn't seem likely 4 significant digits is justified.

Comment: Re:Why is it always developers? (Score 2) 89

by bobbied (#47509877) Attached to: Researchers Test Developer Biometrics To Predict Buggy Code

It's because software sucks, and no one has any real idea what to do about it.

You are more right than you know. Where writing software is a skill that most can develop, the really good developers are more a cross between engineers and artists. They are more like architects, where the form and function are both of high importance because having software that "works" (in that it does everything required [engineering]) and having software that is "workable" (in that it is easy to use [artist]) are worlds apart. Finding developers that do both engineering and art is rare.

It's not just the GUI interface, but ANY "interface" that needs to be usable, functional, simple to understand and complete. Designing an interface that works is easy, making it functional and simple to understand is much harder, and then making sure it is complete (does enough, but not too much to make it complex) is the real art.

Comment: Wonderful....This won't be good... (Score 1) 89

by bobbied (#47509761) Attached to: Researchers Test Developer Biometrics To Predict Buggy Code

Now my boss is going to be watching the developer's eye movements instead of testing code... This will not end well.

There is no magic bullet and where this might find the sections of code that your developer finds difficult to understand, it still isn't going to give you any idea about the quality of the code they produce. All you will know is how hard they concentrated when producing it.

I remember when we watched SLOC, but it was of marginal value. Then it was logical edges and complexity which was sometimes useful, but not always. Now they want to use biometrics to figure out how complex I find my code? It won't be any more helpful than complexity was.

Keeping code understandable and bug free has always been about naming identifiers, formatting, comments and using standard patterns and TESTING it as much as possible. All these golden bullets will only end up in your foot if you choose to use them....

You see but you do not observe. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes"

Working...