Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:How I lost weight (Score 1) 492

by dyslexicbunny (#49332507) Attached to: Hacking Weight Loss: What I Learned Losing 30 Pounds

The real problem is going out to eat has netted massive serving sizes. If you eat the whole plate, you'd generally eaten more than a day's worth of food. Usually two. Now most of the time when I eat out, I generally cut the meal in half and take the rest home. Now I get two meals out of one (so it was more cost efficient for a broke student) but it's also healthier. Sometimes I could even eat leftovers over two meals too for things like Chinese or Mexican. It's not perfect but works pretty well.

I also dumped sweets from my diet almost exclusively (not soda but the amount is down). The thing is that I saw it as competition between sweets and alcohol in terms of empty calories and I wasn't planning giving up booze. If I did, I'd probably see even more weight loss.

Comment: Re:Don't mess with my jetset lifestyle (Score 1) 232

by dyslexicbunny (#48722633) Attached to: Aircraft Responsible For 2.5% of Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Is aviation as efficient as many modes of ground transportation? No.

But it's not like manufacturers aren't looking to reduce fuel consumption as there's no incentive to make an inefficient aircraft either. One of the biggest challenges for aviation is the fact that aircraft have a 30 year lifespan. Aviation has NOx emissions and noise standards that already exist and they are working to finalize aircraft CO2 emissions standards. These standards are regularly tightened to help put pressure on continued technical development.

Additionally, load factors for aircraft are far closer to 100% than most automobiles. There's great potential to reduce automobile emissions at minimal standard of living changes. We could easily phase out ancient powerplants and replace them with modern designs or tax buildings/residences that are above some particular power consumption threshold. All it really takes would be a best bang for buck study to figure out what we should do.

Comment: Re:more NOS and less lense flare (Score 1) 332

It has a significant number of issues.

ST:ID should have been a battle for the soul of the Federation. You've got Sellers arguing for increased militarization of what was a peaceful and scientific organization. Keep Cumberbun in there as the guy making it all happen - hell, he can even be Khan because I have nothing against that. But the ending should have been with Spock suffering significant injuries and Khan stealing the badass ship to escape. Every attempt to punish Kirk for being disobedient never did anything because he was automatically promoted back in charge almost immediately. Then Khan can come back in the third film and end the cold war between the Klingons and the Federation as they have to work together to defeat him.

As is, they stole too much symbolism from Wrath and made death no longer remotely threatening with magic blood. The fact you need Nimoy to tell us that Khan is bad should have been a clear sign they should have started over. But Orci and Kurtzman aren't talented enough writers to deal with that and JJ is far too loyal to drop them.

Comment: Re:Self driving cars (Score 1) 307

by dyslexicbunny (#48385545) Attached to: I'm most interested in robots that will...

I don't have to run anything. It will happen regardless.

Automation and other technology developments will continue to remove the need for a number of jobs at a rate faster than we can generate new ones, creating an increasing class of the unemployed. It's not really a question of if it will happen but when.

Comment: Re:Self driving cars (Score 1) 307

by dyslexicbunny (#48385497) Attached to: I'm most interested in robots that will...

Laws can be changed if there is sufficient will. By having to pay out smaller claims, they also no longer need as many employees. It will be a steady drop as more and more cars go driverless. If premiums are held constant, insurance companies will be raking in massive profits. But the free market will easily take care of that because plenty of other people will want a piece of that pie. The real challenge will be whether someone wants to insure the software company developing the self-drive and what it will cover.

I disapprove of robotic reporting. Largely because you could get multiple tickets before being informed of the first one. Also, your definition of less polite drivers may differ from mine.

Comment: Self driving cars (Score 5, Interesting) 307

by dyslexicbunny (#48373905) Attached to: I'm most interested in robots that will...

There will be a number of significant implications from self driving cars that I want to have happen.
- Decreased accident rates, resulting in less damage and therefore smaller insurance companies
- Far fewer traffic violations, such that traffic police will either be let go or reassigned to more pressing matters
- Shitty pay driver jobs will be nonexistent

Essentially, it helps push towards increasing unemployment and that is good in my opinion because it will require a new train of thought in how the world works.

Comment: Re:Data centers? (Score 4, Insightful) 407

by dyslexicbunny (#48169039) Attached to: As Prison Population Sinks, Jails Are a Steal

Why couldn't we use them as temporary apartments for the homeless? All the infrastructure is there to meet their needs, just replace the cell bars with a wall/door to add privacy. They now have an address in applying for employment. Showers, laundry, and dining facilities. Common areas could help with job training and education. The medical wing could make efforts to help diagnose mental illness and help people with addiction.

The only thing this requires is effort.

Comment: Re:FP? (Score 1) 942

by dyslexicbunny (#48038939) Attached to: David Cameron Says Brits Should Be Taught Imperial Measures

Believing you're the greatest is just plain easier. Why do you think Detroit got its ass handed to them? Or why Microsoft typically struggles in other markets.

If I was truly interested in being the best, I'd look at the competition and see what they are doing right and figure out how to make it work for me. But then again, that process involves not telling people what they want to hear.

Comment: Re:Yeah, students will use bandwidth (Score 1) 285

by dyslexicbunny (#47503995) Attached to: How One School District Handled Rolling Out 20,000 iPads

I would contend that it depends on the subject. I'd seriously consider teaching math or science but given that my friend is making $42,000 with a masters in Industrial Engineering to teach stats and CS, why bother? I can make twice that or more in industry when I finish my doctorate. I'd bet if you were offering $70,000 to math and science teachers, you'd get plenty of talented folks.

Comment: Re:What difference now does it make? :) Sunk costs (Score 1) 364

by dyslexicbunny (#47424459) Attached to: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere
I was a part of the group that did the second engine study to defend continuing the funding for the F136. Since it was cancelled, I'd expect GE to continue funding it internally and when the F135 can't do the job, they show up with an engine that costs significantly more than it would otherwise and they've got Uncle Sam by the balls.

I would actually argue that it's not an R&D problem but rather a requirements problem as well as a military acquisition problem. The former is largely due to the VTOL requirements that the Marine Corps want is largely incompatible with the Navy and Air Force requirements. The problem is that the Marines needed a replacement aircraft and Congress wouldn't approve two aircraft programs so they tagged along. The latter is a far bigger problem in that Congress dictates what systems the military get, which is why we're making tanks that we don't need and sending them directly to the Boneyard.

I personally think the military should be able to establish their own priorities and initiate weapons programs as needed subject to review from Congress. Congress could then insist that the military defend their position but they would not be able to force systems on the military that are unwanted or unneeded.

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?