Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Wrong approach (Score 1) 426

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/05/21/rossi-manipulates-academics-to-create-illusion-of-independent-test/
Last comment.
"Here is how Rossi has fooled the same bunch of academic physicists this time: "
Seems like a good approach.

The number of times the answer is "Rossi" to the questions in main post is pretty damning too.

Comment Re:That's what happens... (Score 1) 260

Naw. You're right. That'll teach me to just google for random website snippets.
Site looked plausible, but I'm guessing they just made a mistake.
Wikipedia lists nuclear energy production at 2731Twh in 2008 and wind at 212.

Soo.
212/2731 = 8%

Pretty close to what you gave.
The 19% for average production seems correct tho...

Comment Re:That's what happens... (Score 1) 260

Hm. Also kinda interesting to take the installed capacity figure for 2010 and divide by the generation value.

Sooo.
Installed capacity in 2010. 196.630 GW.

Power generation in 2010... 327,850 GWh.

327850 / 197 = 1664h

1664 / (365*24) = 19%

Sooo, actual production for any given GW of installed capacity averaged 19%?

I'd seen typical figures using 25% or higher.

Comment Re:That's what happens... (Score 1) 260

It seems to me it produced a lot less than 1/10th the power.
According to Wikipedia, total wind production in 2010 was 327.850TWh
According to "nuclear power today" -- "In 2011, production was 2518 billion kWh"

The years are roughly the same, so...
328 / 2518000 = 0.000130262

Which seems a lot more plausible. There just isn't that much wind out there.
That is, not 10% of Nuclear but 0.01% of Nuclear.

Comment Re:not oss but (Score 1) 128

That's a great theory.

Good code must work, but looking nice is optional. Additionally, when debugging code (sometimes code you wrote an hour ago), you need to see not only the code, but what is happening in the hardware. At that point, it's irrelevant whether the code looks nice or not. It's also not always true that good looking code will work. There are errata for microcontrollers (and microprocessors, though those are usually handled at the OS/driver level), so the obvious and beautiful solution may not work at all.

Debugging is what you do when something doesn't work the way you expected. This means that, by definition, the code isn't understandable. If it were understandable, there wouldn't be a problem, right?

Comment A couple questions (Score 1) 187

Just a couple questions come to mind:

First: What is the purpose of keeping the information? If it's just to have a record for your own sake of what and when and how much, do you even need to scan the statement or receipt or keep the original? or can having all the info imported into a money manager be enough?

I've been using Quicken for over a decade (still using Quicken 2000 actually as later versions are bloaty) to keep all my financial history in detail. For answering questions like "When did I buy that Belkin KVM switch so I can see if the warranty period has expired" searching the register is good enough as I add enough info the memos. In this example (real one from just a week ago), finding the information easily was enough, and it's to my advantage to have all the individual statements and detail items combined into larger account histories rather than parse an archive tree full of pdf/ocr files (FWIW: even this old version of quicken lets me attach scans of receipts to entries)

Second Question: In what cases is the Original Paper required as opposed to a scan? If you need to show an original statement, receipt or other document to prove some thing or get something approved, do you know when an electronic copy or reproduction is as acceptable as the original? I don't think this is an area with consistent clear cut answers yet because of its newness.

Let's take an admittedly unlikely example. You have a house but have moved to take a job out of state, and you're trying to sell the house. Some scumbag squatter moves in and tries submitting false documents to claim ownership. All the documents relating to purchase and any mortgages have been scanned and shredded. Will the courts, police, banks, city and county offices etc. give you any trouble because they are not signed originals? What if the scumbag claims you fabricated the documents (like he did) and his are the originals? What if some entities accept a scan and others don't?

I've implemented a hybrid system where different documents get scanned / destroyed at different times. I have a single card-file cabinet (Filing cabinet with half-height drawers). Paper copies of everything from the current year and previous year are kept in a drawer. At the end of each year, I take all the documents from year-1, shred most of them (assuming any need for them has past), and put the ones I deem most critical in a small box to archive.

Comment Re:Strictly DRM (Score 2) 208

Well, supposedly the server does game saving (which probably would have required a small amount of effort to make cloud based in the first place), and syncing a small amount of information about city stats between players (this last one was trivially spoofed and apparently is the thin justification for making it always-on multiplayer online).

I'd say they went out of their way to break offline play.

Comment Re:Great User Interface, though! (Score 1) 79

Unwritten?
===========
``Perhaps whoever designed it had eyes that responded to different wavelengths,'' offered Trillian.

``Or didn't have much imagination,'' muttered Arthur.

``Perhaps,'' said Marvin, ``he was feeling very depressed.''

In fact, though they weren't to know it, the decor had been chosen in honour of its owner's sad, lamented, and tax-deductible
condition.
===========

Comment Re:Awesome for FireFox! (Score 1) 199

Not only that, but on his other point, the memshrink project took off, Firefox has been using significantly less memory than other browsers.
On my system, for 5-10 tabs, Firefox uses about half as much memory as Chrome. For a large number of tabs, Chrome explodes to gigabytes of memory while Firefox doesn't go up by much at all.
Not to mention tab groups make organising that large number of tabs a lot easier.

https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/category/memshrink/

Comment Re:Cheap alternative to Retina MacBook (Score 4, Informative) 392

Bit of clarification on the linux instructions.
http://chromeos-cr48.blogspot.com/

Has the typing commands portion of the instructions simplified down to:
wget http://goo.gl/34v87; sudo bash 34v87

run at least twice.

And:
sudo cgpt add -i 6 -P 5 -S 1 /dev/mmcblk0

To set ubuntu as the default boot.

So. No need to type in anything too complex w/ dd

Comment Re:1.6 ghz? (Score 5, Informative) 284

As someone with some game development experience, let me throw in some observations. (*based on the specs mentioned here).

The 3.2 Ghz Power PC CPUs in the Xbox 360 and PS3 were in-order execution units. As I remember, code on the 360 typically executed about 0.2 IPC -(Instructions per cycle), sometimes worse. The very best hand optimized assembler doing tasks like video decoding could execute about 0.9 IPC once properly cached and unrolled.

AMD and Intel have decades of R&D now into out-of-order x86 execution (the x86/x64 opcodes being translated to internal micro ops), which is a major factor in their performance. Even the Power PC G5 chip devoted a good chunk of its silicon to Out-or-order execution. The 360 and PS3 CPUs - designed almost 10 years ago - traded Out of Order execution for die size and clock speed.

The specs say that the 1.6 Ghz CPUs can issue up to 2 instructions per cycle. If real world performance works out to an IPC of 1.2 to 1.6, which seems very doable, then you will see a 3x to 4x increase in the real-world rate of instructions being performed . ( 0.2 IPC @ 3.2Ghz == 0.4 IPC @ 1.6Ghz ). This doesn't take into account any efficiency gains due to the instruction set, cache, etc.

And at the same time, I would imagine it's a whole lot easier to deal with other things on the chipsets at 1,.6Ghz than at 3.2 Ghz (mature tech and all that)

Comment Re:Please include flash! (Score 1) 181

Oh. Then there are sites that use "detection" code and won't even show you a click-to-play area on the screen. They'll simply bounce you to some error content if they fail to create the invisible flash content.

Hopefully this sort of poor behaviour is becoming rarer. Esp since Firefox on my Android tablet/phone prompts for flash too, which will hopefully drive some website awareness.

Slashdot Top Deals

Last yeer I kudn't spel Engineer. Now I are won.

Working...