Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Accounts (Score 2) 122

by jbengt (#48951575) Attached to: The NFL Wants You To Think These Things Are Illegal

Wrong. The NFL says the BROADCAST descriptions and accounts are copyrighted. Plenty of other places have their own accounts and descriptions.

Well, that's one way to spin it. But the actual words do not explicitly say that and do misleadingly say that any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited. However, they cannot copyright the actual game, only their recording of it (written or videoed); though getting into the stadium probably requires you to buy a ticket prohibiting you from making your own recording.

Comment: Re:How is maintenance performed? (Score 2) 147

by jbengt (#48933481) Attached to: Former NATO Nuclear Bunker Now an 'Airless' Unmanned Data Center

sulfur hexafluoride makes more sense.

It is also less environmentally dangerous than halon.

Sulfur hexafluoride is an . . . extremely potent greenhouse gas. . . . According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, SF6 is the most potent greenhouse gas that it has evaluated, with a global warming potential of 23,900[19] times that of CO2 when compared over a 100-year period.

New production of halon has already been banned (for ozone depletion), anyway, so it is of course not a good choice.

Comment: Re:I prefer a tablet for some things to a smart ph (Score 1) 300

by jbengt (#48926215) Attached to: The iPad Is 5 Years Old This Week, But You Still Don't Need One

There are things a smartphone will do better than either a tablet or laptop.

Make calls is the only thing that a smartphone does better for me.

There are things a tablet will do better than a smartphone or laptop.

Again, for me, the only thing a tablet is better ar is battery life (and maybe portability, when compared to a laptop).

And there are plenty of things a laptop will do better than a tablet or smartphone.

Basically everything, except phone calls and battery life.

Comment: Re:Boiled at 90C? (Score 1) 155

by jbengt (#48907123) Attached to: Scientists Determine New Way To Untangle Proteins By Unboiling an Egg
Though the numbers assigned and scales used are somewhat arbitrary, using physical phenomena to define temperature scales is not really arbitrary, but rather useful. The International Practical Temperature Scale uses (among other physical points) the triple point of water to define 0.01C, which is just as arbitrary, but more reproducible, than using the freezing point of water at atmospheric pressure to define 0.00C.

Comment: Re:Interstellar missions... (Score 1) 211

by jbengt (#48892557) Attached to: At Oxford, a Battery That's Lasted 175 Years -- So Far

Consider what exactly heat means - it's the average kinetic ("vibrational") energy of the atoms in an object.

Technically, heat is only the energy moving as a result of a temperature difference. The average (translational) kinetic energy is proportional to the temperature. The kinetic energy of molecular motions is the internal energy.

Comment: Re:Office 2007 started the move into alternatives (Score 1) 148

. . . . but I actually hated the menu in Office 2003 and the silly menus to show more. My worst was the nested menus and options where I needed many mouse clicks to perform tasks.

Couldn't you just have clicked on the buttons in the easily customizable toolbars?
Or are you only talking about the auto-hiding menu items that popped out after a delay, which is the first thing I turned off whenever I got a new computer/office install.

Name one function that was removed since 2003.

There is one big thing that has seriously regressed since Office XP and Office 2003: help was actually good then. I find Google much better at MS Office help than the built-in help function nowadays.

Comment: Re:Poor delusional old man (Score 1) 191

by jbengt (#48855685) Attached to: Japanese Nobel Laureate Blasts His Country's Treatment of Inventors
I got around it by ignoring the agreement (it was an revised agreement they wanted everyone to sign after I had been working there a few years.) My department head never noticed that I never returned a signed copy. Still, since I read it, if it ever came up I'm sure they would have still tried to enforce it, since I knew it was their policy.

Comment: Re:A known "Fact"? (Score 3, Insightful) 219

by jbengt (#48849523) Attached to: Why Some Teams Are Smarter Than Others

This is bullshit. Who needs to "read minds" more? The female whom sexual advances are aggressively made towards, or the male who must discern his mate's passive body language, subtle flushing of the skin and lips, sidelong glances, etc? . . .
The oversimplification of "having more women" is insulting to women.

So what were they supposed to say about the study? That their actual observation (that the more women in the group, the more successful the collaboration) was wrong - after all someone on Slashdot with anecdotal experience knows better because figuring out whether women are open to sexual advances is difficult for him?

Comment: Re: Jurors (Score 1) 303

by jbengt (#48823205) Attached to: There's a Problem In the Silk Road Trial: the Jury Doesn't Get the Internet
Jury of Peers was meant to eliminate conflicts of interest that arise if, for example, the King were to rule on who can inherit the Baron's estate. Having only other engineers on the jury would raise conflicts of interest - the engineers on the jury might see themselves being liable for the same sort mistakes the defendant made and want to reduce their exposure by ruling in their favor.

Comment: Re:Jurors (Score 1) 303

by jbengt (#48823057) Attached to: There's a Problem In the Silk Road Trial: the Jury Doesn't Get the Internet
Exaclty.
Jury of Your Peers was agreed to in the Magna Carta and has a meaning stemming from that context - commoners should be tried by commoners, and noblemen should be tried by noblemen, not by the king. It was supposed to eliminate what we would now call a conflict of interest.

Comment: Re:So much anger (Score 1) 202

by jbengt (#48813775) Attached to: Obama Planning New Rules For Oil and Gas Industry's Methane Emissions
Really, no company drilling for natural gas is going to throw away what comes with it, if they can avoid it. Ethane, propane, helium, and even carbon dioxide are extracted and sold, and with low methane prices they can make a significant difference in profit and loss
On the other hand, oil companies operating in the middle of nowhere, like rigs offshore or in the middle of the Arabian desert, are going to flare off the gases if they have no way to transport it.

Comment: Re:"just" 9 percent? (Score 3, Interesting) 202

by jbengt (#48813315) Attached to: Obama Planning New Rules For Oil and Gas Industry's Methane Emissions
According to someone I know in the industry, the EPA estimates for methane leaking in to the atmosphere are greatly exaggerated.
FYI, one of the leading cause of methane "leaks" in the field are pneumatic-type controls use that work using the pressurized gas in the pipe instead of compressed air (more economical to use what is at hand, rather than build out electrical or compressed air infrastructure to power the controls). These types of controls necessarily bleed off pressure in order to work (or they'd be one-way controls that could open, but not close, or vice-versa) The EPA requires reporting based on their estimates of leakages from types of equipment, valves, piping, etc. When his company did an internal audit of losses, they found that they were losing a small fraction of the methane that the EPA forms required them to report. I'm not saying that the actual leakage is an insignificant contribution to warming, nor that the gas company got it exactly right, just that the EPA estimate of possible savings is likely over-estimated.
Probably at least as significant as methane entering the atmosphere from production facilities, is the methane that leaks from municipal distribution networks and consumer end uses.

Happiness is a positive cash flow.

Working...