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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Predicrtable. (Score 1) 124

Yes, if you'd been following along I was identifying a SPECIFIC PERSON'S hypocrisy.
If I'm calling out one person as a tendentious hypocrite, what relevance would be articles by some Washington weekly, Vox*, or the "Bipartisan policy center"**?

*oops:
"Initially effective at increasing deportations, the Secure Communities program was short-lived. It faced blowback from primarily liberal jurisdictions, driving a revival of the movement to offer sanctuary to undocumented immigrants in the 2010s.
The concern among progressives was that it would reduce trust in law enforcement among immigrant communities and make everyone less safe because fewer people would report crimes. It also led to the deportation of people who had only committed minor offenses or had no criminal convictions.
In 2014, Obama rescinded the program in response."

** to their main question: why isn't Trump prioritizing the worst criminals? Well....they don't appear to really know, "it appears" "it seems" - when a quick perusal of the WH's own official statement repeatedly mentions prioritizing public safety. https://www.whitehouse.gov/pre...
FWIW, honestly, I don't care how they prioritize them. If they're caught, send them home, full stop. Bird in the hand is one that doesn't get to fly to some shitty "sanctuary city" and rob/rape/kill some innocent person there.

Comment Re:Not if but when (Score 1) 134

Yes, because certainly nobody did science (tm) before governments drove it?

Maybe we could check in with Mr Eisenhower, from his famous "beware the military-industrial complex" speech:
https://www.archives.gov/miles...

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

...it's funny nobody remembers this bit, ain't it?

Comment I'm impressed with their tenacity (Score -1, Flamebait) 227

That's bold, considering the last flu vaccine round had a NEGATIVE 26.9% efficacy.
#followthescience

Yes, you read it right, if you were vaccinated you had a 27% HIGHER chance of getting the flu.
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten...

Now, a host of slashdot leftists are ALREADY TYPING THEIR RAGE_REPLY because I must be an antivaxxer.

Actually, I'm not. I just don't participate in the "with us or against us" bullshit binary that's accreted around the COVID vaccines. (So that probably does make me an "enemy" in their book.)

I consider vaccines to be one of the greatest achievements of modern technology. I'm vaccinated. All our kids are vaccinated, and I haven't a single qualm about recommending MMR and the slate of childhood vaccines for every little kid.

THAT SAID, I also think that
- COVID panic was largely bullshit. It was a highly communicable but otherwise not-very-virulent corona virus strain that mainly affected older and vulnerable people. Thus the term..."vulnerable". At the end, the IFR for COVID19 was basically a bad flu*. Cry all you want, argue the actual data.
- the COVID vaccines were rushed, not nearly tested enough, and have resulted in some very questionable ongoing heart and other issues in younger people that had NOTHING to fear from COVID. Given the high effort in deliberately confounding the outcomes during the Biden administration, it's unlikely we'll ever know the truth.
- I'd have had much more confidence in the entire COVID event had one side not made all the decisions for everyone and insisted no debate was allowed. OPENLY discussing the causes, the treatments, and what we did/didn't know would have been preferable to the "STFU we know what's good for you" nearly-totalitarian approach. Hell, here in MN there was an almost-palpable disappointment we didn't get to use the corpse-storage-buildings the state rushed to rent.

Do you take issue with my tone? Tough shit. Anyone daring to question the Holy COVID doctrine was aggressively silenced for YEARS while the mandarins in charge RUINED lives flexing their emergency doctrines and now will evade any consequence for their awful decision making. Yeah, that bothers me.

* https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a...
The median IFR (COVID19)was
0.0003% at 0-19 years
0.002% at 20-29 years
0.011% at 30-39 years
0.035% at 40-49 years
0.123% at 50-59 years
0.506% at 60-69 years
https://www.medrxiv.org/conten... median IFR for flu you'll have to look as the graph isn't postable in (the ancient shit-code of) /. comments but sits at about 125/100k or 0.125%
Yes, lots more people got COVID. It was highly communicable. But nobody under 30 should have been even faintly discomfited, even people under 50 really shouldn't have given much of a shit.
Quarantining sick people in elderly homes was a catastrophically stupid idea and we knew it by March/April 2020.

Comment Except... (Score 1) 136

...basically, the earth should be warmer.

The bulk of its history it's been a great deal warmer, with higher levels of CO2.
https://earthscience.stackexch...

The fact is that that the deep carbon cycle is not at equilibrium, with more carbon coming out of the mantle (through volcanic activity) than carbon going back to the mantle (through subduction).
This is good, because at 150ppm CO2, vegetation fails and everything dies.
https://www.frontiersin.org/jo...

Comment Re:Time for laser guns (Score 3, Insightful) 157

Pin-pointing a laser onto a moving target is getting progressively more difficult the faster the target is. Targeting optics need to be progressively faster and more precise to hit the object for the time needed to have the intended effect. And all the effect the laser it has is proportional to the energy it deposits per square centimeter onto the target. With more air passing by the object, even more energy is dissipated and with the faster speed, the total flight time in range of the laser is progressively shorter.

That's what makes hypersonic weapons so dangerous. They're too fast for defensive missiles to counter. There's less time for detection and identification overall, less time for a friend-or-foe decision, less time to align the laser spot on the target, the laser will be less accurate on the target, depositing less energy per square centimeter and second, the while the projectile dissipates more energy per second to the air around it and the laser system will have far less time anyway to destroy the incoming projectile before it impacts the thing it was supposed to defend.

Look at the few leaked videos of hypersonic missile impacts. These missiles are so fast that there's barely a 1 or 2 seconds between the missile appearing and impacting. Current lasers have AT BEST a 10km engagement distance and that doesn't include the plasma shield that air forms around the HGV due to air friction at that speeds. At Mach 12 and ideal conditions, the laser will have less than 2 seconds time to deliver all its energy, through all atmospheric distortions, follow the HGV's potentially unpredicable flight path without instantly and permanently blinding all humans near and around the defended area.

Atmospheric dust and smoke will quickly render that even more impossible than it already is. So even if the first few defense shots MIGHT be effective, every subsequent shot will become harder and harder because there will be more and more dust and smoke in the air around the laser. If lasers become too effective in the future, then you will see the attackers firing whatever they can find to increase smoke and dust in the atmosphere around the laser or reengineer their HGVs to release insane amounts of smoke when targeted or destroyed so you can at best destroy the first few of them until there's far too much smoke around to do anything with lasers against the next wave. Or they wait with their attack until there's fog or dense clouds over the target, forcing the defense to use MASER or similar things that could penetrate clouds more easily, but who knows what disadvantages that brings. And the Chinese leveraging their most prominent strengths, you can be absolutely sure their HGVs will be mass-produced in ridiculous numbers and through economies of scale become ridiculously cheap as well. They will then simply spam them over the target so that no amount of laser technology will be able to counter them, because you can't reasonably concentrate the amount of energy needed to defend against all of them. Even if you had 100 or 10000 lasers of the required intensity (1MW or more), there simply won't be enough Watts / Joules around to feed them all.

There is very little defense against mass-produced, reasonably cheap gliders at speeds above Mach 4. The attackers can distribute production and stockpiles of gliders over their entire country and produce and stockpile for years, and mass them on any single target. The Joules needed to produce them can easily be transported to the factories, because there's enough time to do so. The defenders would have to place enough lasers near all potential targets to counter a massed attack on any of them. The Joules needed to fire the defense lasers would need to be transported immediately from everywhere to any one target area or stored everywhere in a way that's currently totally unfathomable to us. And even if we managed to do that, HGV production would profit from these advancements as well, bringing more and cheaper HGVs down on the target, immediately nullifying that advance right away.

In short: defending against cheap(er) mass-produced HGV gliders is literally, physically, theoretically and even ontologically impossible.

If you want to read further, look up "Hobbesian trap", "Fermi paradoxon" and "Dark forest hypothesis".

Comment Re:Seems pointless (Score 1) 52

The first thing that ages in all laptops is the thermal interface material between heatsink(s) and processor(s). Once the TIM begins to dry / age / pump out / degrade, it sets off a positive feedback loop where the chip gets hotter with TIM aging, which in turn gets the chip hotter still and aging the TIM even faster and so on. A little lint and dust in the heatsink will kickstart this even higher.

LCDs didn't have a CCFL backlight prone to aging in a while, and they also mostly avoided OLED so far, so they don't have the other age-prone display technology.

If the laptop is of any value whatsoever, it is built in a way that allows the heatsink / fan to be replaced by a service tech in one hour or less. Most gaming laptops are built that way and many business line models, too. Business laptops have enough spare parts available for cheap, so they win in that regard.

The published MTBF for a part are rarely relevant for laptops and you shouldn't rely on that. Since laptops are carried and used in the full variety of human behavior through the full variety of human environments, their wear levels are varying wildly. For a server HDD, you can assume server room environments with controlled temperature and vibration. For laptops? No way. Some were used stationary in air-conditioned offices, never moved and not even typed directly on them and some were trotted around every day on construction sites in the desert.

Comment Re:Seems pointless (Score 1) 52

Temperature matters a lot for components and laptops usually max out their component temperature limits quite a bit.

If I had two identical laptops with a similar age and wear, I would immediately choose the one that has seen more hours at higher temperatures, although it would be difficult to formulate this in such a way that it can be used mathematically or algorithmically. Laptop A has operated 1 hour at or above the allowable CPU temp of 100 degrees Celsius and 9799 hours at idle with barely higher CPU temps than ambient - vs. laptop B that has never been above allowable CPU temp, but logged 9800 hours above 70 degrees Celsius. Who knows which one is the better deal?

But on a qualitative level, "operating hours x temperature ~ wear" and thus the usage history of the device is relevant for its used value.

Slashdot Top Deals

Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie

Working...