Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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: No. Not ten. (Score 1) 173

$10 a month is $120 in a year, $1200 in ten years, $4800 over a working lifetime (40 years or so.) The question isn't what can you buy with $10. The question is, what could you buy with $4800? That, and how much will it cost to save that $4800, because that has to be taken right off the savings.

Math. Do you have it?

Comment: Wasted Energy? (Score 1) 173

Wasted energy is still wasted energy no matter how you produce or buy it. Getting the energy from solar is no excuse for sleeping devices to hog that much amps.

That's ridiculous. If you are tapping a constant, otherwise non-utilized stream of energy -- sunlight certainly qualifies -- if you're collecting more energy than you're using, and not running out during low-generation periods (clouds), there are no serious utilization issues unless your system is put together poorly or outright wrong.

You want to put all of your effort into reducing those things that cost you money and / or the environment its stability. Extra hungry wall warts running off solar power... they have no such significance at all.

You cannot over-utilize an infinite, zero-collection-effort resource.

Comment: Re: What Would be a Trivial Amount? (Score 1) 173

Many [car] brands are much better now.

We can thank the Japanese, and to some extent the Europeans, for that. They kicked Detroit's ass back to the starting line. To their credit, I have to say, they got the message and cleaned up their act, and yep, modern American cars and trucks are nothing like what they used to be. Fit, finish, longevity, performance, handling, mileage, amenities, safety, it's all better.

But my refrigeration gear is shite.

Comment: Re:The Better, Longer Lasting, Cheaper Bulb (Score 1) 139

by ScentCone (#49366021) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon

That is not "market economics" but improvements in production ...

Why the hell do you think that people who make things bother to improve production? Because if they don't someone else will, and they'll lose their market. You really do lead a sheltered life, don't you. I can tell you've never actually made anything, or been tuned into the bottom line of any business entity that does. You should. You'd learn a lot.

Comment: Um. My moderns sure have not laster... (Score 1) 173

The myth that appliances, tools, or cars lasted longer in the past is mostly false nostalgia.

That's not been my experience. I've been through quite a few "modern" refrigerators in my life (I'm 58.) My most recent purchase, a standup freezer, only lasted about a month past the 1-year warranty, and the compressor went nipples north. Cost a fair bit to have that compressor replaced -- even though it's a sealed, lightweight POS. My frig is about three years old, and we're already thinking of replacing it, as the amenities have failed -- icemaker, waterspout, filter system. Modern consumer level refrigerators and freezers just have not done well for me. Flimsy plastic shelves and fittings, ice makers that quit working in no time, filter systems that fail, the very cheapest possible compressors... meh.

There have been many days when I wish I'd thought to collect my mother's refrigerator / freezer. It's still at the old house, cranking along. It's been there since before I was born -- well over 60 years. Never broke down. Never needed repair. Never needed coolant / oil. Dead quiet. Looks pretty dated, all rounded edges and the like (it'd look right at home in a 1940's dwelling) but damn, for the money I've spent, I could have easily lived with it. At this point, it'd sure be a bitch to drag it from Pennsylvania to Montana, though. :)

Comment: Produce in your garden? (Score 1) 173

Surprisingly, growing your own food DOES save money.

It's not surprising -- it just isn't worth it for most people. To do it well, you variously need land; upkeep time; knowledge (pests you don't need, creatures you do, plant nutrition, how to harvest without doing damage, control of wastage, fertilizer issues, varietal information, home-cooking skills, canning skills); seed sources; patience; storage, fencing to control animal forage, sometimes a permit...

Or you can just go to the supermarket, buy a bag of salad and a can of beans, come home and cook dinner. Or hit a restaurant.

It's pretty easy to see why most people choose to exchange the labor they do via the obvious proxy (money.). It really depends where you want to put your effort. The money you save -- whatever that is in a particular case -- has to be of at least the same value as your time, otherwise, you're working against yourself.

We have a tower garden here. It was a gift, so the initial cost (to us) was nothing. Even so, the costs for the nutrients and starters and the small amount of electricity the nutrient pump takes adds up to be non-trivial, and the amount of produce isn't fabulous overall, all things considered. The quality of what it produces is, though. Buying it... I wouldn't even think of it. It's expensive. It's also kind of pretty when it's all growing like a little vertical jungle, but that's pretty minor in the larger picture.

Comment: Re:QuikClot and Celox (Score 1) 68

If this technology becomes common place, I expect those with crustacean allergies will be required to wear a red tag same as those with pencilin allergies.

It might even become practice to use it anyway and follow up with a treatment for the anaphylaxis, if the bleeding is severe enough. People can survive shellfish reactions with management - severe internal bleeding, not so much.

Comment: Re:The value of technology investment (Score 1) 74

by bill_mcgonigle (#49365579) Attached to: SpaceX's New Combustion Technologies

This is the first article I've seen that explains well how GPUs can/are being used for practical applications along with what can be achieved and some of the issues.

GPU's have been used for all sorts of "practical" computations for half a decade now, but the really interesting part here is that CFD has been particularly GPU-resistant using existing algorithms. See the Xeon Phi processor, etc. for non-GPU approaches to throwing dedicated hardware at the problem. It's easy to underestimate the enormity of this quote, but "starting from scratch" when necessary is something SpaceX excels at:

I am grateful to SpaceX for allowing us to basically start from scratch on CFD and in many ways reinventing the wheel.

It's hard to gain sufficient insight from TFA but it sounds like this is as big as hidden-line-removal in computer graphics and that they've moved CFD to the boundary conditions and made that GPU-computable, which is like solving two or three orders of magnitude at once.

Comment: Re:Wrong Focus (Score 3, Informative) 74

by jcr (#49365325) Attached to: SpaceX's New Combustion Technologies

As it happens, back in the '80s I worked at a company (Commonwealth Scientific) that built ion-beam guns based on the Kaufman duoplasmatron, which was the basis of the mercury-vapor thrusters that NASA had developed in the 1960s. The company was trying to make the aperture of the guns as wide as possible, and the difficulties included neutralizing the ion beam on the way out, keeping the plasma inside the gun stable, and keeping the beam density even. Basically, the bigger the gun, the harder it was to make it run steadily. When I was there, they had 8" apertures and were working on scaling them up to 12" apertures.


Comment: Re:call it the Ukraine-2 (Score 1) 133

by circletimessquare (#49364607) Attached to: Russia Wants To Work With NASA On a New Space Station

What Russia did to Georgia in 2008 is a continuation of what Georgia did to itself in the early nineties

i stopped reading there

russia has no right to invade a sovereign country. do you understand? of course they have a "reason." do you have a functioning brain? can you see through their bullshit?

russia meddled in an *internal* georgian dispute that occurred within the internationally recognized borders of georgia. then it divided the country into a "new" bullshit country abkhazia

is it ok if the usa invades the mexican district of sonora and announces that it is a new country? why can the usa do this? uhhh... drug smuggling. yeah, that's our reason. perfectly good reason, totally understandable, right moron?

what was russia's reaons for invading georgia? guess what: it has no fucking right to invade and divide a sovereign country on those hopped reasons. do you understand what sovereignty is?

can the american fbi go into canada and arrest people? no? why not. can the us army occupy ontario? why not? because canada is a sovereign country, you dumb fuck

why do you think it's perfectly normal and ok for russia to invade and divide it's smaller neighbors? it's not normal. it's not acceptable

no country, anywhere in the world, does what russia did to georgia and ukraine without consequences. not south africa and mozambique. not china and vietnam. not brazil and uruguay. countries do not invade other sovereign countries and that's just normal and fine. do you understand?

if you do, continue speaking on this topic. but if you continue to assert russia invading and dividing georgia and ukraine is "reasonable" then you do not understand what the fuck sovereignty means and are therefore announcing yourself as a complete moron or a propagandized idiot on this topic and you should shut up

Comment: Re:*sigh* (Score 1) 258

by ScentCone (#49364317) Attached to: Iowa's Governor Terry Branstad Thinks He Doesn't Use E-mail

They also said their records are poor in general. "We don't have a record of X" thus does NOT rule out X having existed in the past.

State Department IT staff are on the record having told her multiple times that her method of communicating was preventing them from archiving her official email as required. Are you saying that despite the steps she took to make sure that no mail sent to and from her counterparts all around the world, to and from other agencies and branches of government (including the White House) , and to and from the well known mile-long list of donors to her family enterprise and political operation, that somehow there was a magic link between her private server and some archiving mechanism at State? A link that you think might exist, but which SHE acknowledges did not exist, and which some how - despite no email address involving being used in such communication - magically somehow got archived at State, and not one single example of such can be found by multiple investigative teams? And why would they find it - preventing it from getting into that system is exactly why she built a path around it. State's archives have copious correspondence from hundreds and hundreds of their other officials, staff, contractors, previous cabinet appointees and related users - just not a single scrap from her? Of course they don't: she didn't use that system.

And SHE HERSELF says that she thinks having corresponded with staffers inside State was a good enough way to retain those messages. She hand-picked reporters and pre-approved questions in the only Q&A she's allowed on the subject, and so conveniently was able to avoid being asked how she thought that method would apply when corresponding with people like Blumenthal (who hasn't denied that the leaked emails were his, by the way). Which is why she's never had to address the fact she wasn't personally taking any steps to CC or otherwise mirror all of the mail sent to and from her private server, as required by law. She hasn't mentioned CCing her mailbox that because at her direction, State's IT never even established an email account for her to which she would mirror her mail.

When finally capitulating to demands that her public records actually be made available, she didn't print out 55,000 pages of them because of a failure by the staff and systems at State, she printed them out because that was the only way she was willing to make them available. She could have forwarded them electronically, in their entirety, as required (so that, as the law requires, a government archivist can evaluate the messages and cull the official from the private). But no - she and her lawyers opted for a method that would absolutely maximize the additional delays in allowing other people to look through the records, would remove helpful header information, and would add untold thousands of hours of taxpayer-funded work to turn the documents back into searchable form. That was a deliberate choice that added work on her part in order to make the process more difficult and slow for investigators and the press, who had been requesting the documents for years.

I can only find Republicans claiming that, not objective (non-political) examiners.

Do you consider the investigation run congress when it was controlled by HER own party (which established after spending millions of dollars looking into related things, that there were NO such records at State) to have also been polticized against her? Now - under pressure - she's dumped hardcopies of the records that actually did exist all along (well, just some of them), and investigators who - unlike the last ones - aren't in her pocket for political gain say that the records have large date gaps. Unlike HER, they are conducting activity that will be entirely in the public record. When the investigators looking into this say something, you and they know that they will be fact checked to death by her political operatives. Despite her deliberate attempts to hide her communications from standard public review, you are giving her the benefit of the doubt ... but when a long-time career prosecutor (with a sterling record) and now congressman who knows that everything he says will be subject to endless review tells you what's present (and absent) in what are now public records available soon for YOU to look at, too, you're assuming he's lying?

What's that have to do with points being discussed?

It goes to establishing her deliberate actions in this area. In cases of private communications being mixed in with official ones, government archivists are supposed to look at ALL records, separate the official from the private, and return the private records to the person who blended them together. She knew this, and took actions to deliberately prevent such review. And knowing that subpoenas were coming, destroyed all evidence of how such decisions were made.

Thrashing is just virtual crashing.