Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Plot too thin, just like a dictionary (Score 1) 381

I have the first three, and I have read parts of all of them. Especially "Sorting and Searching".

It's reference material. You read it when you need it to get a much (much) better understanding of what you need to do to solve a problem. That's the point of reference material -- you don't have to read it except for the parts you need. That leaves your brain free to think of important things, like where you left your coffee cup.

Comment Re:I still want short distance & long distance (Score 1) 395

"getting a free ride to consumer grade accounts"

What free ride?  Content providers pay for their internet access.
If the ISP cannot price their offerings such that they are able to deal with the traffic, that is on them.

What you propose is nothing less than extortion ( "pay up for the packets... get slowed..." )

Comment Re:Cue the "I hate the environment" trolls (Score 2) 428

When a photovoltaic cell collects energy from a Photon, is does not absorb the whole photon, it only increases it's wavelength and re-emits it; basically converting regular light into infrared light.

While the regular light bouncing of a simple white roof could leave the atmosphere, taking it's excess energy with it, the now infrared light gets trapped by the greenhouse effect, heating the atmosphere.

It's 'free' electricity for the owner, excess heat for everyone else.

Comment Re:$15-$18 million of real money or FIFA money? (Score 1) 149

IIRC, the glider case says that bots are illegal, due to copyright since it has to technically copy the code to run in memory, when you don't have a license to run it. And there are similar issues with selling your characters.

Here's what I'm wondering, though: if this is considered fraud, and EA can pursue it, then EA is stating their in-game currency is worth real money. If it's worth real money, they can't simply forbid it from being sold. If they claim it's theirs (which virtually every game maker does) and has zero value (which virtually every game maker does), having it worth a real value could force it to be declared legal to sell characters and in-game currency for real-world money. Doctrine of first sale and so on.

Comment Re:Poor monkeys (Score 2) 50

Thought experiment:

Very advanced aliens come to earth.  ( they got lost ( not very advanced, eh? ), wrong turn at Aldebaran )
They are ( i would not argue ethically, but ) advanced beyond us.  Lets concentrate on the power/technology aspect of this.
They have power to dominate us as individuals and as a civilization.  And they live about 1000 years, so our ~100 year span is "brief" to them.
They are biologically similar to us, so the things that go wrong in us also go wrong in them.
So, they decide that we make good test subjects for research into various research topics ( regrowing limbs, how long can the brain live without a body, without sensory input, hair loss, etc ).

They land here, and pick *you* for something that will benefit them tremendously, but will require things be done to your person.
It may be painful, but they will have some pity for your state, and pump you up on painkillers where this does not harm the experiment.
Your mental state will not be considered.  Addicted is OK for them, you are a test subject.
Your connections to fellow human beings will not be considered, unless that is part of the test, and staying with your loved ones is very unlikely.
You will also be put down painlessly at the conclusion of their test, even if the test is a success.
You will, in no case, receive any benefits of this research, nor will humanity as a whole.
Your body will be disposed of after, probably as food for other experiments.

Has the ethical landscape changed for you?
If you say "no", I ask "really?"

Comment Re:Classic over-engineering. (Score 2) 303

They do upgrade and iterate the aircraft.  The F-15 is up to version D/E ( E being the strike variant, ground attack roles are often added towards the end of a fighter's lifespan )

Unfortunately, there does come a time when, depending on the intended use, upgrade and iterate does not work any more.
For aircraft like the B-1/B-52 and like the A-10, I am in much more agreement with you.  But for fighters, things get different.
You can do what the Russians are doing, buy many less expensive aircraft.  But you have to buy more. Expense can still be high.

When the F-15 ( Design from 1967, First Flight 1972 ) entered service, 20k pounds of thrust per engine was norm, now, 40k pounds of thrust, with vectoring thrust is the norm.  You say, shore it up, make it stronger.  Sure, but then you really have to re-engineer a fair bit of the aircraft.  Low observable was just on the horizon at that time, so the aircraft shape is not optimal, they did not have the resources to refine the shape.  More re-engineering.  And there are improvements in the radar and avionics.  Often, existing aircraft are updated with these, but at some point the space and power and aircraft shape requirements mean it just wont go.

So, my prescription would be
  update and iterate as needed
  when a new aircraft is really needed, design a specific aircraft for that role.  The F-22 had it's teething pains ( if you watch closely pretty much *every* aircraft does.  Famous example, P-51 Mustang.  Almost didn't make it.  The British stuck a Merlin engine ( with 2 speed, 2 stage supercharger ) replacing the Allison single stage supercharged engine* in a test aircraft sent over for evaluation ( the Mustang was built for the English ) after they tested it with the Allison, and found it lacking.  Today, everyone forgets it's teething troubles, and praises it )
Where things go really sideways is when the aircraft is designed for multiple missions.
We keep thinking we are being smart, but it keeps biting us in the bottom.  F/B-111, is an obscure example..  Supposed to be a naval fighter and ground attack aircraft.  When it's role was finally limited to the ground attack part ( with the F-14 emerging as a fighter to take that role ) it was able to succeed.
The F-35 is our recent example.  It may turn out to be an excellent aircraft, but it is going thru it's teething time now.  And trying to make it a good fighter and bomber, and STOL/STOVL aircraft ( to suit Marines and British interest in a Harrier replacement ) is complicating things.
Separate the concerns.  And, in a sense, they are, with the A/B/C variants of the aircraft, but the ties to each other complicate things.

* the Allison engine was a good engine, it was crippled by the supercharger.  Army Air Corps people did not believe there was a need, never mind what was going on in Europe. The same engine, turbocharged, in the P-38 gave America it's first 400+ mph aircraft.

Comment Re:That sounds like a lot of power to make oil (Score 1) 181

Plants pull carbon from both the ground and the air. Rich topsoil is full of carbon by definition.

Thus Human->ground (assuming you mean whole, preserved corpses going into the ground) doesn't really mean much, and means even less when you consider that sequestering bodies in caskets isn't done in most places (preferring non-preserving, or burning), the meat that is buried is insignificant. Even with 55 million humans dying per year, consider that we kill over 50 billion chickens every year, 40 million cows, and 100 million pigs. All of those are also eating plants, so they're consuming carbon. If what you said about them being carbon sinks was correct, we wouldn't have the issues with atmospheric carbon that we do.

In other words, that is not the cycle.

Some of our waste is just thrown in the ground, but that is not a good way to treat it. In order to prevent water contamination and diseases, our waste is filtered, blended, treated with bacteria, methane reclaimed, dried, chopped up, treated to remove pathogens, and used as fertilizer or otherwise churned back into the soil. Basically, it's fed to plants, and it goes back to us one way or another, in an altered form. Some of it goes right back into the atmosphere.

Comment That sounds like a lot of power to make oil (Score 2) 181

It sure sounds like it's not a cost effective way of making oil, but it might be very cost and space effective in sewage treatment.

It would be carbon neutral, very fast in comparison to traditional treatment, and sounds like there's no methane release (an issue in normal sewage treatment). If they can separate it on site, they can use the fuel generated to power the plant.

Comment Re:What do you call a russian Manchurian candidate (Score 1) 548

Or maybe have a relationship with Mexico as good as we used to have with Canada, and eliminate the threat of global terrorism; instead of trump's plan to stuff our ears with cotton, shove our head in the sand, pay the Mexicans to build a wall, and let Russian nibble it's way towards Europe/Arctic oil reserves?

Slashdot Top Deals

Base 8 is just like base 10, if you are missing two fingers. -- Tom Lehrer

Working...