Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment vnc is to X as penthouse is to girlfriend (Score 5, Informative) 94

X is a protocol for graphical interface elements, such as application windows. With remote X, the application's window IS on your local screen, using the remote cpu and fileystem. It's part of your local desktop, a real, local window.

VNC is a highly compressed PICTURE of a remote desktop.

Since X is the real thing, and VNC is a low quality PICTURE of what X is actually doing, it's just like you're saying that a porno mag is better than an actual girlfriend. Your comment is THAT ridiculous.

Besides the fact that you seemingly don't know the difference between an application and a desktop environment.

If you ever want to stop masturbating with VNC and try the real thing, use vnc -Y -C . Y is a better version of -X, and -C enables lossless compression, which is very useful on most networks.

Comment You might be right, I was/am split. 3-way, he wins (Score 0) 379

You might be right, I hope so. A solution assumes that sufficient candidates drop out, though. Two or three reasonable candidates may split the reasonable vote all the way to the end. Cruz and Rubio are similar enough that they could stay in to the end and have 40% for Trump, 60% of voters who'd prefer EITHER Cruz or Rubio. In which case Trump wins the nomination, even though 60% wouldn't have picked him in any two-way race.

Trump has been loud enough that everyone either likes him or doesn't, by now. Not a lot of people are going to change (much like Ron Paul was). I don't like him all, but I'm not sure which of the other candidates I'd choose yet. Except for Rubio's stance on domestic surveillance, I could easily vote either Rubio or Cruz, and Kasich may be okay (I haven't checked him out much).

Comment NASA.gov has good Mars info (Score 1) 530

Mars is of course getting a lot of attention lately, so the Mars section on NASA.gov is pretty good. Most of it in the Mars is pretty straight, without arguing about global warming, adding adjustments to make the data fit the model or whatever.

I'm sure you can find your way around mars.jpl.nasa.gov, but here's one page to start with. Many people are rightfully concerned about measuring the polar ice caps on earth. When reductions were measured in the north* that was considered major evidence of global warming. Here NASA talks about the same thing happening at a much faster rate on Mars. NASA measured the reduction at 3 meters per Mars year.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...

Note again I'm not saying this effect accounts for ALL or even MOST of the warming on earth. It seems to account for between 15%-60% of it, probably close to 30%. The majority is very likely carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, with deforestation being a problem we should keep in mind.

* Some say we should ignore the 30% INCREASE in polar ice on the south pole. Polar ice only matters when it fits your campaign pitch, perhaps.

Comment Energy mix indeed (Score 1) 152

> There's an energy mix for a variety of reasons.

Exactly. One big reason is that some of the stable, reliable sources aren't as clean as we'd like (coal, natural gas, nuclear), while the clean sources are either not as reliable (wind, solar) or available only in very limited locations and amounts (hydro, geothermal).

The mix allows us to use the cleanest stuff when and where it's available, then throttle the slightly less-clean stuff like natural gas to meet demand, with something very steady like nuclear providing a base level that meets minimum demand.

If you're interested in the mix, here's a paper that may interest you. Of course all figures in the paper are cited to reliable sources. It seems like _maybe_ you don't care for math at all, and if that's the case this paper isn't for you. If you don't mind just a little math, this paper goes over many different sources in the mix, discussing the costs and benefits of each, and how they can be combined.

The figures for solar-electric have improved a bit in the last 2-5 years, so the solar-electric number in the paper are very slightly outdated. The conclusion hasn't changed though - solar electric is a good supplemental source, not a reliable inexpensive source capable of providing the bulk of of energy needs.

The paper, if you're interested and don't mind some fairly easy math:
https://docs.google.com/docume...

Comment My understanding of cubed. Your journal entry is s (Score 1) 152

Your journal entry and some of your other posts indicate that you're an intelligent person.

I'm intrigued why it's hard for you to understand that Y = X^3 means that as X changes, Y changes a LOT. That when Y equals X cubed, a large value X means a VERY large Y, and conversely a small value for X means a comparatively tiny value for Y.

Really, your other posts seem like this arithmetic shouldn't be hard for you. A strong wind has a LOT of power. A light wind has almost no power in comparison. It makes wind farm design a bit tricky. It also means that wind can be a really good way to reduce natural gas generation when the wind is good, and doesn't provide significant power when it's not windy. I'm really surprised you're having trouble with this, you're definitely not stupid.

Comment Oh, all the other planets have forest fires. Ok (Score 1) 530

Okay, so you're explanation is that all of the other planets have big forest forest fires over the last few decades. Okay.

Or are you saying that the rest of the planets (and their moons) have volcanoes, which cause them to warm up? Which do you think best fits the data?

Comment NASA 2005: Mars ice caps "at a prodigious rate" (Score 1) 530

Yes, the Mars orbiter from 2005 has data and photos of the same areas as the 1999 data. The principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera, Michael Malin, says the martian polar ice cap is shrinking at "a prodigious rate."

I've gotta run, but I'm sure you want have too much trouble finding tabular data if you want, NASA has a Mars section on their site. Also, various people arguing global warming have cherry-picked data points and argue about them, but I prefer NASA.

As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, it seems like whatever is affecting the other planets (the sun) would probably explain about 30% of the warning on the earth. That's a really rough estimate it could be 15% or 60%; we can reasonably say it's significant, but not the sole cause.

  Add in what we know about C02 and the two probably explain the observed trends pretty well. Of course the C02 data varies wildly, with "highly respected" organizations estimating global C02 by measuring it ON A VOLCANO that's spewing tons of C02, but anyway we know C02 has an effect, and we know there's an effect that's more than just on earth.

Comment NASA.gov, with pics of Mars polar ice caps (Score 1) 530

Here's some information from NASA. (Nasa.gov link below.) Many people are rightfully concerned about measuring the polar ice caps on earth. When reductions were measured in the north* that was considered major evidence of global warming. Here NASA talks about the same thing happening at a much faster rate on Mars. NASA measured the reduction at 3 meters per Mars year.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...

Again, because I think peoples passions make it hard for them to actually pay attention to what they read: this solar-system-wide phenomenon seems to account for perhaps 30% of the warming on earth, not all of it. You can still feel good about recycling paper bags.

* on the other hand, 30% MORE ice at the south pole means nothing at all, some say. Pay attention only to the one that supports your team's politics. ;)

Comment What do you think is the cause? Why not earth? (Score 1) 530

What, exactly, do you think would cause the other planets to warm, and not have the same effect on earth?

> Delete your account you stupid fuck.

I certainly understand that it can be quite uncomfortable, once you've picked a team and become a fan, to have clear, indisputable facts get in the way of your team's political puffery; you've invested some significant self-esteem into the idea that Al Gore was telling you the truth. Unfortunately, facts are what they are.

If -something- is warming the other planets, is there any reason earth should be special and be unaffected? Or is it more likely that earth, just like the rest of the solar system, is affected too, and a politician exaggerated the human-caused portion for -gasp- political purposes.

I kind of feel for you, for what you'll likely go through soon, because I think you're too smart to be a lemming to Gore and now Hilary. I don't think they'll keep you fooled for much longer, because you're not stupid. That will be painful, though, coming to accept that just as Santa Claus doesn't exist, Gore and Clinton are just another pair of wealthy politicians, who say whatever polls well with the masses.

Comment My Job. $19 billion/year for another healthcare.go (Score 1) 184

This will probably be good for me and for people I know, since I'm in the information security field.

That said, I hope the republicans take a look at what exactly he wants to spend yet another $19 billion on each year (assuming none of it goes over budget). Another healthcare.gov type government IT project isn't what we need, obviously. Even liberals could probably come up with better uses for those billions of dollars than cybercare.gov. ;)

We'll see what all he wants to do. Hiring a CSO for the federal government might be a good idea. If he wants Brian Harrison and Chris Gronet to run it, each with a $20 million / year salary, that's probably a bad idea.

Slashdot Top Deals

All the simple programs have been written.

Working...