Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 1) 1105 1105

I am not arguing the temperature will not rise. The temperature will continue to rise and there will be negative effects. I just don't think they will be catastrophic for me.

How much are you willing to pay to attempt to reduce those negative effects? How much are you willing to force others to pay?

Fear mongering about environmental catastrophes, the extinction of the human race, and ad hominem attacks on those who question the appropriate response to climate change is why there continues to be inaction. In this case, I like inaction (it keeps my energy costs low).

Comment Re:cause and effect, how does it work? (Score 1) 1105 1105

Nobody wants to be the guy who actually sacrifies anything.

I don't mind making sacrifices in the short term to improve something in the long term. However, in this case I don't think the payoff is worth it. The long term consequences of climate change are unknown. The amount of short term pain required to affect the long term consequences are also unknown. Given the unknowns, I am happy to continue not making sacrifices.

Comment Re:Who cares? (Score 1) 1105 1105

A potential environmental catastrophe is impending. Why concentrate on who's guilty? The interesting question is, what are we going to do about it?

Nothing. Which is the correct thing to do. As you put it, there is a potential environmental catastrophe. The emphasis should be on the word potential. I believe the earth is changing. I believe humans are the main cause for these changes. I believe these changes will have some negative impacts. However, I am not willing to spend a large amount of money or impose taxes on carbon to avoid these unknown negative impacts. I haven't been convinced the money we spend on prevention will be less than the money spent on dealing with the changes.

Comment Re:Wait hold on mugger... (Score 2, Informative) 457 457

Parent is correct. The primary market of this kind of weapon is for military and law enforcement because there's a lot of fatalities/serious injuries caused by the bad guy grabbing the weapon from the police officer.

That may be true, but the police unions will never let this happen. The NJ law referenced in the article exempts the police from this requirement.

Comment Re:Wait hold on mugger... (Score 5, Informative) 457 457

And yet the most common firearm for police officers doesn't have an external safety. Glock pistols have some internal safety's that prevent mechanical failures or dropping it from causing the gun to fire, but there is no external mechanical safety. When you pull the trigger it fires, when you don't pull the trigger it doesn't fire. Exactly the way it should be.

PlayStation (Games)

US Air Force Buying Another 2,200 PS3s 144 144

bleedingpegasus sends word that the US Air Force will be grabbing up 2,200 new PlayStation 3 consoles for research into supercomputing. They already have a cluster made from 336 of the old-style (non-Slim) consoles, which they've used for a variety of purposes, including "processing multiple radar images into higher resolution composite images (known as synthetic aperture radar image formation), high-def video processing, and 'neuromorphic computing.'" According to the Justification Review Document (DOC), "Once the hardware configuration is implemented, software code will be developed in-house for cluster implementation utilizing a Linux-based operating software."

Comment Re:these guys are all improving each other's code (Score 1) 100 100

Uh, that's a pretty disgustingly American viewpoint of the issue. Can't we all agree that if you didn't come in first, then you can still be a winner? This has been taught in schools for a long time now, it still hasn't been internalized?

No, this was a contest to see who could improve the algorithm the most. There can be only a single winner. If the contest was to improve the algorithm by x%, then there might be multiple winners. If you start calling everyone a "winner", you just cheapen the experience for the true winner.

Comment Re:At all skynet references: (Score 1) 252 252

The US already uses weapon systems that once they are turned on, make the decision about when to shoot and what direction to shoot. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-RAM There are situations where human beings can not make decisions fast enough. Shooting down incoming artillery is one of those situations.

Comment Re:First question (Score 1) 88 88

Why does the FAA have web based air traffic control applications?!

It makes it easier to file a flight plan. Instead of calling up a flight service station on the phone and going through the error prone process of giving them my flight plan, I can do it online. I find it to be easier and the government likes it because it is cheaper.

Comment Re:judges oinstructions have always banned this (Score 2) 414 414

Who are you to decide whether or not you'll abide by that ruling?

If I am on the jury, then I am one of the citizens who will be deciding the outcome of the case. If I am going to be deciding something, I would like to be able to hear all of the facts. Let me decide how much weight to give each piece of biased information.

Comment Re:New Becons cost too much (Score 1) 184 184

- The increased precision required of aviation units.

When everything it working, an aviation GPS that is used for IFR approaches is not any more accurate than a consumer grade GPS. But the aviation GPS does more checking to determine if the navigation information can be trusted.

- Added features such as standby power that are unique to aviation.

No, not really.

- The fact that they are programmed with all sorts of aeronautical information (positions of beacons, approach patterns, etc). It costs money to license this information and include it in each unit.

This doesn't increase the initial cost, but it is a pain to constantly be updating the GPS database.

- Additional cost to ensure each unit complies with FAA regs.

This is the big one!

1.79 x 10^12 furlongs per fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law!

Working...