Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Field Programmable Gate Array (Score 1) 92

Wow, you are really that foolish? Well, maybe you are a child. Let me explain how the real world works for you. Yes, you can google it - I did so. That's how I figured it out - and I put it on the thread so you know I did. But people do not google random things to see if they are interested in learning more about them. You only google something AFTER you decide you want to learn more about it.

When writing an article only a totally incompetent author leaves the subject of the article unclear. Because if you don't explain the subject, no on would BOTHER to google it. Why should Joe Shmoe take his time and effort to figure out what your article is about? That's not his job, it YOUR job.

The poster of this thread and the writer of the article did a horrible job. It's the equivalent of coding a 100,000 line application without bothering to put any comments in it at all.

Comment Re:Study is right, but needs more.. (Score 0) 163

Filtering coal plants does not help the miners, and doing so makes coal more expensive than any other kind of fuel - wind, solar, tidal, geothermal all are CHEAPER than filtered coal.

You are the only fool that thinks my world has nuke or coal.

Humans are really bad when it comes to comparing risks. We avoid dramatic things like terrorists, and accept subtle things like tobacco. Same thing with nukes and coal - comparing one thing that people are unreasonably afraid of (nukes) to an established and accepted risk is the simplest way to convince people that they are being foolish. It is not and never was an insistence on an either/or situation - that was in your head.

Comment Re:Study is right, but needs more.. (Score 2, Insightful) 163

No I am saying that human beings are really BAD at comparing risks. We have certain things we fear and over-react to (nuclear anything, terrorists, plane deaths), and other things we accept and ignore the risks (coal, tobacco, car deaths).

We have no business being afraid of nuclear power plants, anymore than we should be afraid of aircraft deaths. Whether or not we should take more actions to protect against coal, tobacco or cars is an entirely different matter.

Comment Re:Field Programmable Gate Array (Score -1, Offtopic) 92

FPGA is totally meaningless acronym. It could have meant "Female Professional Golfers Association" or "Fantasy Professional Gamers of America" (OK that was pushing it )

Field Programmable Gate Array is more than enough to get someone that is computer literate interested in it the tutorial

Comment Study is right, but needs more.. (Score 4, Interesting) 163

Basically, it should have compared it to coal, as coal releases more radioactivity than nuclear. Small bits of radioactive thorium are found in coal mines, and when you mine the coal, you release it from the entombed safety. Then when you burn the coal, you release even more into the atmosphere. The radioactivity risk in the immediate vicinity of a coal burning plant is significantly greater than that of all nuclear power plants. Coal miners and plant workers are more likely to die of cancer than uranium miners and nuclear power plant workers (note, this only applies to the US industry, other countries may have different rates due to different regulatory strengths.).

Comment Field Programmable Gate Array (Score 0, Flamebait) 92

Is the very first thing that both the post and the article SHOULD have said.

The fact that neither of them explained the acronym makes me question the value of information.

Because if you expect an article to tell you how to learn something, then you have to tell them what you are teaching, without having to google it.

Submission + - Almost no real women on Ashley Madison

gurps_npc writes: Ashley Madison claimed to have about 31 million men and 5.5 million woman enrolled. Those odds are not good for the men, 6:1. But unfortunately, most of those 'women' were fake. This researcher analyzed the data and found only 12,000 actual, real women using Ashley Madison. That means for every 7750 men, there were 3 women. There are reports that Ashley Madison paid people to create fake female profiles. Their website admits that 'some of the users may be their for "entertainment purposes"' The article itself is well written, including a description of the analysis.

A charitable person would say that Ashley Madison was selling a fantasy, not reality. But a realist would say Ashley Madison is just a thief stealing money from lonely, unhappy men.

Comment Sell the dream, not the need (Score 1) 410

How many people buy super fast cars then never go faster than 80 mph?

How many people buy high end "Sports Utility Vehicles", designed to go off road, through rivers, up mountains, then never leave the pavement - effectively using them like you would a minivan?

How many people buy convertibles and keep the top up all year long?

Cars are sold based on desire, not on need.

I personally would disconnect any antennae/radio function of a vehicle - it helps the car company track and control my car more than it helps me. But people buy what they want, not what they are going to actually use.

Comment Re:Precision (Score 1) 95

I strongly disagree with you. The only difference between buzzwords and jargon is to whom you are using them, they have nothing to do with the specificity - either way, it is about precise communication.

That is, sometimes you are trying to be more specific in order to avoid confusion, but sometimes you are trying to be specific to impress. Similarly, sometimes you are trying to be general - so as to be sure to include rare cases.

My second example - the use of the word "Enterprise" is a great case where business is intentionally being less specific, in order to be clear to their own salesmen and engineers.

Similarly, the word "Synergy" is a classic buzzword abused to the point of becoming a trope/ meme. In addition, it is neither overly general or overly specific, but is very clearly a buzzword. The problem is not of specificity as you claim, but in non-existence. That is, people thinking that anything can have synergy, when in fact it is rather rare.

Comment Re:And who was the big believer in carbon credits? (Score 0) 145

Actually, this is just confirmation that carbon credits BETWEEN COUNTRIES is a bad idea, which has pretty much been proven to be true decades ago.l

This is not anything against carbon credits WITHIN a single government - as long as you can't trade them to those outside the government.

That idea continues to be a good one.

Note, states count as government if the carbon credits can be traded across state lines and the other state does not follow the same rules.

To my knowledge, every single abuse has come about from people outside the governing agency to inside or vice versa. Basically you can't trade a limit with someone that is not affected by those limits.

Comment Precision (Score 4, Insightful) 95

The reason for specialized language is to ensure precision among insiders. You don't want a cancer surgeon to remove the 'wrong' arm bone because someone wrote 'arm bone' on the instructions, rather than 'ulna'. Similarly, businessmen use specialized languages, such as 'enterprise' to include both businesses, government agencies, charities, and sub-divisions of same. They want to make sure the salesmen does not ignore certain sales opportunities simply because they used a non-inclusive term.

The problems occur when you use those specific terms with NON-insiders.

A doctor should simply say arm bone, or at least "ulna - a bone in your arm", when talking to a patient.

Similarly, a competent businessman will strip out the specialized terms when talking to specific people. If you are selling software to a business, do NOT say 'enterprise', say business.

The only reason insiders use insider terms with outsiders are:

To hide something - a lie, incompetence, overcharges, etc.

Because they themselves don't understand the term and are reading from a script.

They are REALLY BAD AT COMMUNICATING.

For example, When I talk to my father, I don't talk about object oriented programming, I talk about re-useable software parts.

Comment Key is included snap-ons (Score 1) 76

This device could catch on - but only if it includes at least one killer-app snap on. It's not going to take off if you sell it bare bones with no overlay.

But if they include something interesting, like a music overlay - with software designed for it, or a gaming overlay, then I could see it take off big time.

God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein

Working...