Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Half an hour? (Score 1) 98

I'm curious why the key number in headline is half an hour, since TFS mentions "10 minutes", "12 minutes", numbers like that.

Does the headline writer think we have 20 minute hours?

Did TFS writer manage to misquote TFA?

Or did whatever standards body controls this sort of thing redefine the hour when I wasn't looking? It would certainly be nice if our 8 hour workday was redefined down to 160 minutes or so. And think of the paychecks if we work the usual amount of time and get paid for 24 (20 minute) hours every day!

Comment Re:as they say, "let the free market decide" (Score 1) 193

and you need to apply the fines to the personal assets of the board and c suite

Pretty much impossible legally. That's why they're Limited Liability Corporations, after all.

In fact, that's the whole point of a Corporation - to make the corporation liable, and not its employees (like, you know, the CEO)....

Comment Re:Early education more important (Score 1) 162

When a child is behind their piers by a year or two it becomes almost impossible to catch up.

Yeah, when a (presumed) College graduate can't spell "peers" correctly, it'll be hard for him/her/it to catch up with said peers...

Or were you talking about people living down by the docks? If so, never mind....

Comment Re:Wow do I want a copy of this! (Score 2) 350

91% accuracy? That's enough for plausible denyability.

91% accuracy...let's assume that gay men are 10% of all men. So this program will correctly identify 82% of men as straight, and misidentify 8% of straight men as gay. Similarly, it'll identify ~9% of men as gay correctly, and 1% of them as straight (incorrectly)

So, it'll show ~83% of men as straight and 17% as gay. And half of the gays it identifies will be straight.

And considerably worse for Lesbians. Much less Bi's...

In other words, not terribly useful.

90% accurate sounds like it's really good. But it's only meaningful if the distribution is pretty much even (half straight and half gay gives a pretty solid indicator with this program, but 90+% straight and 10-% gay, not so much). Since it's not an even split between gay and straight, this is a waste of time at this point. Maybe when they get accuracy to 99.9%, they'll have something worth reporting....

Comment Re:First sentence is absurd (Score 4, Insightful) 262

The last few hurricanes have been and still are breaking records all over the place, so how can you reasonably argue that intensity is not increasing?

Which last few are those? Harvey and Irma? How about Jose and K(whatever it's called?)? Or A(whatever) through G(whatever)? Were you bothering to include them?

Or last year's storms? Anyone even remember any of them? Year before? Any year since Katrina? Any of the other storms that year?

Selective memory is a thing, people. You remember the big, flashy things, and forget the overwhelming majority of pedestrian things...

Comment Re:No IPHONE (Score 1, Insightful) 302

"There is no gawd but profit, and Apple, Exxon, Google, and some gambling financiers are profit's prophets."

This would almost be enough to make me think you didn't insist on a salary for your job. After all, isn't a salary, well, profit? The one you get for selling your skills/labor?

Comment Re:Or... (Score 1) 244

Won't argue that you can't launch an ICBM into the Sun. Hell, it's easier to send a spacecraft to Alpha Centauri than to Sol.

DeltaV to reach the sun is essentially Earth's orbital speed.

DeltaV to reach AlphaCent is essentially Solar escape speed less Earth's orbital speed, which translates to (SQRT(2) - 1)*Earth's orbital speed.

Which still doesn't "orders of magnitude" make.

Oh, and it would actually take about 1000x as much fuel, assuming you could squeeze that much fuel into the same rocket. Now, that's "orders of magnitude" more fuel. But not "orders of magnitude" more speed.

Comment Re:Coal gets a bad rap IMHO (Score 4, Informative) 176

B) It doesn't matter how much you wash it, it still pollutes horribly even if you ignore the CO2 mainly due to sulphur dioxide and particulates in the smoke.

Plus the radioactives. Mustn't forget that. Yes, there are radioactive elements in coal. Which typically go up the smokestack in a coal plant. Because coal stack scrubbers aren't actually designed to deal with uranium and thorium, which you find in tiny amounts in coal (and tiny amounts multiplied by a metric-fuckton of coal being burned adds up to more radioactives released into the air than nuclear power has ever managed).

Slashdot Top Deals

After an instrument has been assembled, extra components will be found on the bench.