Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: requires record-breaking barometric pressure (Score 1) 173

by raymorris (#48954767) Attached to: NFL Asks Columbia University For Help With Deflate-Gate

As you noted, the altitude of the locker room is effectively the same as the field, so altitude would not be a factor. You made me curious about barometric pressure, so I looked it up. The highest-ever recorded pressure was less than 1 PSI above standard pressure, so even a record-breaking barometer reading wouldn't explain it.

Comment: two more reasons. It kills people, and it kills pe (Score 2) 62

by raymorris (#48953871) Attached to: Nuclear Safety Push To Be Softened After US Objections

Others have already pointed out two reasons. One, making it a billion times safer than carrots also makes it cost a million times as much as it already does, and two, if it's more costly than coal, people will just burn coal instead. I'd like to point out two more reasons.

Suppose you make $60,000. You can only spend that $60,000 once. If you pay $100 more on your electric bill to make your power even more safe, that's $100 you don't have to spend on having your car a bit safer - two more airbags, perhaps. Spending your safety budget on the wrong things gets people killed, because any money from your pay check that ends up paying for safer energy is money that can't be used for traffic safety, food safety, etc. So the way to have the safest LIFE is to spend your safety budget where it does the most good, which probably isn't energy related.

Secondly, have you ever worked at a place that makes you change your password monthly? Pretty much everyone there increments their password, so all passwords end with two digits. Ever seen a highway with a speed limit posted that's clearly much too low? Everyone ends up speeding, but by vastly varying amounts since there's no reasonable guidance on how fast you should be going. Excessive rules are counterproductive because they just get people in the habit of ignoring the rules. If you wnt people to follow the rules, you need a) rules that are reasonable and b) people who understand why the rules they are handed are reasonable.

So the proper set of safety rules, the most effective are:
Carefully selected for maximum effect per cost, keeping the safety budget in mind.
Reasonable to follow.
Well explained, so people understand WHY they are reasonable rules that should be followed.

Comment: Too bad mdSOLAR didn't mention WHAT proposal (Score -1) 62

by raymorris (#48953389) Attached to: Nuclear Safety Push To Be Softened After US Objections

It's too bad that neither mdsolar's summary nor the article he linked to mention what change was proposed. Some changes may be good, others bad. No way to know about this one without knowing just what is was that someone wanted to change.

You know, mdsolar, you'd probably sell more by engaging in discussions on forums more targeted to your market and just answering questions people have have solar power systems. That would include forums that have a lot of people who want to be "off the grid" or less reliant on the grid, prepper forums for example. Also certain home renovation forums would have people who might be interested in buying. Pitching the general concept here, especially through negative FUD about your competitors, is kind of a waste of your time.

Comment: working on a grant project here. Wrong on both cou (Score 1) 498

by raymorris (#48952571) Attached to: The Gap Between What The Public Thinks And What Scientists Know

From someone actively involved with trying maintain a federal grant at work, you're simply mistaken on both counts. The federal grant covers the salaries of the people involved with that project. No grant means no project. No project means the jobs go away.

The grant is for renewable terms. WithIN the current term, continued funding is dependant on hitting certain specified targets, as measured by the officials at federal agency making the grant. At renewal time, renewal is 100% at the discretion of the federal officials. They can cancel our team and send the grant money elsewhere at their complete discretion.

I never understood why people completing make stuff up, fabricating it out of whole cloth, and post it as if it were fact. Go ahead AMD do it again, if you must, and when I'm in the office on Monday I'll post the grant documents, "at sole discretion" wording and all, and you'll just look like an utter fool.

Comment: yep, need "UpdateHostkeys Prompt". Damien? (Score 1) 81

Agreed. I want to know if my servers' keys have changed unexpectedly. You can set UpdateHostkeys No to turn this off; I'd like the option of UpdateHostkeys Prompt.

I do understand that having Prompt as the default would undermine the intended use case somewhat, but I think it would be good to have the option.

Comment: that's for a ballistic projectile (Score 3, Insightful) 213

by raymorris (#48950281) Attached to: NASA Looking At Nuclear Thermal Rockets To Explore the Solar System

> maximum final Delta V from source of circa 58,000 ft/sec

Einstein would like to have a word with you. That word is "relative". Suppose there is a planet traveling away from the earth at at 50,000 ft/sec. An alien on that planet can fire a rocket, which can travel away from that planet at 50,000 ft/s, meaning 100,000 ft/s relative to earth. As it catches up to another planet, it might photograph some other aliens launching their own rocket at 50,000 ft/s, which is 150,000 ft/s relative to earth.

In fact, the SAME rocket could from earth to the first planet, then be launched from that planet, then stop at the next planet and be launched at 50,000.

Come to think of it, stopping at each planet doesn't change anything. It's ALWAYS standing still relative to something, and can launch away from that something to 50,000 ft/s. The gas leaves nozzle at 58,000 RELATIVE TO THE COMBUSTION CHAMBER. In other words, it can always go 58,000 faster, as long as it can fire it's engine. 58,000 is the limit for a BALLISTIC projectile, one that is fired from a gun and doesn't carry a working engine with which to keep accelerating. The limit is 58,000 RELATIVE TO the chamber in which the gas is burned. By carrying the combustion chamber within the craft, it can accelerate until it approaches C.

Comment: Tesla was selling cars in the 1950s? (Score 1) 213

by raymorris (#48950237) Attached to: NASA Looking At Nuclear Thermal Rockets To Explore the Solar System

I didn't know Elon Musk was even selling cars in the 1940s and 1950s, when franchise laws were passed to prevent the two big bad corporations, GM and Ford, from competing unfairly with small dealerships.

Oh, did you think Tesla was the first car company who wanted to sell direct? You're off by about a hundred years.

Comment: we know that we did until at least 1992 (Score 2) 213

by raymorris (#48949985) Attached to: NASA Looking At Nuclear Thermal Rockets To Explore the Solar System

Well, we know that the US had nuclear-armed B-52s and nuclear xommamd and control EC-135s airborne 24/7 until at least 1992. That led to a couple of scary accidents. Google "Chrome Dome" for more information. That was one leg of the nuclear triad - subs, missiles, and bombers on alert 24/7. The bombers periodically received a "do not attack" signal.

What the strategic command has been up to since 1992 we don't know. They keep such things secret when possible, for obvious reasons.

Comment: much more already airborne, in bombs (Score 1) 213

by raymorris (#48949695) Attached to: NASA Looking At Nuclear Thermal Rockets To Explore the Solar System

There was, and probably still is, far more nuclear material airborne 24/7 in standby aircraft. That's in actual bombs, too, with all the many other components assembled to cause it to explode, whereas the thruster would be contained to provide protection as used in currently launched devices.

Comment: more than that, hearts and minds are the goal. (Score 2) 48

by raymorris (#48949093) Attached to: UK Sets Up Internet-Savvy Army Unit

What you said is certainly true, and has been for a long time. Now, psyops is even more important. The US and UK could have turned Iraqi cities into glass parking lots very quickly, if they decided to do mass bombings like WWII. Germany had serious air defenses, yet the allies utterly destroyed large sections of major cities. Undefended Iraqi cities would be like bombing fish in a barrel. Destroying the enemy is no longer considered an allowable goal, though. The new goal is to persuade the general population to see things our way.

You don't win friends by exploding them. Hardware can remove the existing leadership, but the rest is PR.

+ - Is there a modern IP Webcam that lets the user control the output? 4

Submitted by Tronster
Tronster (25566) writes "Owners of a local shop have a menu that changes daily and wanted an IP webcam to update an image on their web-site. After a frustrating 2 hours of a "Hikvision" refusing to behave, I threw in the towel and looked for a better camera to recommend. The biggest issue today is that the new webcams that come out don't support FTP, they all support sending images/video direct to a "private cloud" (e.g., Simplicam, Dropcam, etc...)

Google has been no help; all the sites are either outdated in terms of ranking or the most recent ones recommend a Foscam. They previously tried one of these and it's image quality was too poor.

While security systems and home automation has been discussed recently, I haven't found any recent discussions on webcams that give a user control of where the content is sent. Does anyone in the Slashdot community have recommendations, reputable sites that are up-to-date in rankings, and/or hacks to have control over some of these newer cameras?"

Comment: Re:Not a Control Freak? (Score 1) 410

by raymorris (#48946239) Attached to: How, and Why, Apple Overtook Microsoft

>> Not because he was a control freak, but because he had a passion for perfection.

>. That is precisely what a control freak is

Suppose someone wants perfection, so they hire the very best for everything - they have Pavarotti do the voices, and put Ted T'so in charge of designing their storage. They then trust Pavarotti and T'so to do their jobs well. Would that not be a passion for perfection, but not being a control freak?

Comment: not the best one to base it on (Score 1) 420

by raymorris (#48946193) Attached to: Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

That was a very rough estimate, just to get a general idea of about what a good public safety program might achieve per dollar. You might want to calculate a few more, it's just division. Look up the cost of some program - a safety program such as requiring seatbelts perhaps, or vaccine research, or whatever. Then look up the number of lived saved and divide the dollars by the lives to get the cost per person saved.

I'd bet that requiring seatbelts cost a lot less than $10,000 per life saved. Airbags have probably been pretty cost effective too. Air bags and seat belts were not required one day, then were required the next day, so the difference should be clear.

In calculating the cost of Iraq, be sure to include the facts that a) Saddam was going around invading neighboring countries, gassing the Kurds etc, so going in did save some people and b) to be intellectually honest you have to account for the deterrent effect - what would dictators have done if the the US minded their own business. I would bet that you'll still have a strong argument, and a more balanced one.

Comment: I gave one example, arithmetic your own. airbags? (Score 1) 420

by raymorris (#48946155) Attached to: Most Americans Support Government Action On Climate Change

I gave one example of the cost of a campaign and the lives saved, the campaign to reduce drunk driving. You can easily calculate a few more, it's just division. Look up the cost of some program - a safety program such as requiring seatbelts perhaps, or vaccine research, or whatever. Then look up the number of lived saved and divide the dollars by the lives to get the cost per person saved.

I'd bet that requiring seatbelts cost a lot less than $10,000 per life saved. Airbags have probably been pretty cost effective too. AIDs treatments have really helped people live longer, better lives, while safe sex initiatives have saved many lives. I bet the whole safe sex initiative cost a few billion, while saving few million people, so it might be an interesting one to find numbers on.

Matter will be damaged in direct proportion to its value.

Working...