Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:launchd not as bad as systemd (Score 1) 134

Honestly, you can't rebut someone's point about a feature of systemd simply by stating a random, completely unsuitable, feature of init. Arguments don't work that way. To rebut something you need to actually deal with your opponent's argument.

BTW init sucks. systemd isn't perfect, but at least it isn't init.

Comment Re:America has been put in a bad position. (Score 2) 443

The problem is that Americans think their problems are a result of immigration. The issue is nothing more than a convenient political scapegoat that populists are all but desperate to eat up as it appears to legitimize their xenophobia and present a simple, or at least theoretically attainable, goal. A goal which is a solution for nothing, but a goal none-the-less. When folks have socially unacceptable attitudes, they are easily led to believe they are part of the "real talk" truth - as if they are somehow inherently mature or realist. It's the same reason why nutjobs fell into the 9/11 truther bullshit. It's nothing but a dog and pony show for the middle class so that they don't tune into the real problems America faces.

Comment Re:Feynman and Crichton (Score 1) 252

Acutely summed up in this quote from the Crichton lecture:

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Comment Re: Even if practical technology was 10-20 years o (Score 1) 361

Maybe. My thought has always been that if fusion is close enough to get ballpark figures, we can build the necessary infrastructure and much of the housing in parallel with fusion development. Because the energy distribution will impose novel demands on the grid, it's going to require a major rethink on communications protocols, over-generation procedures, action plans on what to do if lines are taken out.

With fusion, especially, it's expensive at best to learn after the fact. Much better to get all the learning done in the decade until working fusion.

With all that in place, the ramp time until fusion is fully online at a sensible price will be greatly reduced.

Parallelize, don't serialize. Only shredded wheat should be cerealized.

Comment A step forward, but... (Score 4, Insightful) 361

Achieving practical nuclear fusion for power generation would be a very nice step forward. But "holy grail" is rather overselling it, I suspect.

Even when practical, we're still talking very big, very expensive plants that depend on a long supply chain for all its parts, the high-purity fuel and so on. When you consider the building, running and maintenance costs, and the cost of dealing with the spent fuel (much better than for fission plants of course) the energy won't be all that cheap. Hopefully cheaper than fossil fuels at least, but I would not be surprised if a first generation of plants, at least, become more expensive than that.

And they'll be competing with rapidly dropping costs for solar and other renewables. A big, expensive plant like that will need a 40-50 year lifetime to pay for itself. If you can't show that it will likely run profitably for that time period few or no companies will be willing to take on the very major investment. We may well see a technical breakthrough for fusion, and still get no plants actually built.

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 1) 170

There used to be a web page called "Your Eyes Suck at Blue". You might find it on the Wayback machine.

You can tell the luminance of each individual channel more precisely than you can perceive differences in mixed color. This is due to the difference between rod and cone cells. Your perception of the color gamut is, sorry, imprecise. I'm sure that you really can't discriminate 256 bits of blue in the presence of other, varying, colors.

Comment Re:From TFA: bit-exact or not? (Score 5, Insightful) 170

Rather than abuse every commenter who has not joined your specialty on Slashdot, please take the source and write about what you find.

Given that CPU and memory get less expensive over time, it is no surprise that algorithms work practically today that would not have when various standards groups started meeting. Ultimately, someone like you can state what the trade-offs are in clear English, and indeed whether they work at all, which is more productive than trading naah-naahs.

Comment Re:Not this shit again... (Score 0) 434

Anything with a double-blind requirement falls well short of settling an issue because it is subjective. It might be the best we can do for investigating certain complex issues but it most definitely is not conclusive or concrete data.

The hair on the back of my neck stands up near high powered fluxing fields. The RF noise during the power up of most devices and during operation of many causes a "whine" that I can both hear and feel that is distinct from any actual sound.

This doesn't actually normally bother me unless I already have a head/am nauseous, etc. But given that where I feel this "whine" is my ear I don't think it is a stretch that it could be causing dizziness and nausea in others in fact is seems likely.

Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan

Working...