Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
NASA

Submission + - U.S. in danger of losing earth-observing satellite capability (wired.com)

crazyjj writes: As reported in Wired, a recent National Research Council report indicates a growing concern for NASA, the NOAA, and USGS. While there are currently 22 Earth-observing satellites in orbit, this number is expected to drop to as low as six by the year 2020. The U.S. relies on this network of satellites for weather forecasting, climate change data, and important geologic and oceanographic information.

As with most things space and NASA these days, the root cause is funding cuts. The program to maintain this network of satellites was funded at $2 billion as recently as 2002, but has since been scaled back to $1.3 billion at present, with only two replacement satellites having definite launch dates.

Earth

Submission + - Philips releases 100W-equivalent LED bulb, runs on just 23 watts (extremetech.com) 1

MrSeb writes: "The Light Fair convention kicks off in Las Vegas this week so there will be any number of related announcements coming soon. Lighting giant Philips is starting things off early with the announcement of their 100W-equivalent LED bulb, the AmbientLED 23W. The model produces 1700 lumens, putting it at a very respectable 73.9 lm/W. The unveiling comes shortly after Philips’ L Prize bulb was made available to consumers. That bulb currently sells for about $60 and is a more efficient light source, capable of 94 lm/W. The two use similar designs, for example both take advantage of remote phosphor, but the AmbientLED 23W (it will be called the EnduraLED in non-consumer applications) is brighter and lacking in some of the performance characteristics of the L Prize winner, including luminous efficiency and color accuracy. Philips’ 100W-equivalent bulb will be available some time in the fourth quarter. Pricing has yet to be announced, but it will likely be well over $30."
Earth

Submission + - Methane Producing Dinosaurs May Have Changed Climate

Hugh Pickens writes writes: "The Telegraph reports that huge plant-eating dinosaurs callled sauropods may have produced enough greenhouse gas by breaking wind to alter the Earth's climate. Scientists believe that, just as in cows, methane-producing bacteria aided the digestion of sauropods by fermenting their plant food. ''A simple mathematical model suggests that the microbes living in sauropod dinosaurs may have produced enough methane to have an important effect on the Mesozoic climate,'' says study leader Dr Dave Wilkinson. ''Indeed, our calculations suggest that these dinosaurs could have produced more methane than all modern sources — both natural and man-made — put together.'' The key factor is the total mass of the animals which included some of the largest animals to walk the Earth, such as Diplodocus, which measured 150 feet and weighed up to 45 tons. Medium-sized sauropods weighed about 20 tons and lived in herds of up to a few tens of individuals per square kilometer so global methane emissions from the animals would have amounted to around 472 million tons per year, the scientists calculated. Sauropods alone may have been responsible for an atmospheric methane concentration of one to two parts per million (ppm), say the scientists and studies have suggested that the Earth was up to 10C (18F) warmer in the Mesozoic Era. ''The Mesozoic trend to sauropod gigantism led to the evolution of immense microbial vats unequalled in modern land animals. Methane was probably important in Mesozoic greenhouse warming. Our simple proof-of-concept model suggests greenhouse warming by sauropod megaherbivores could have been significant in sustaining warm climates.''"
China

Submission + - America's Next Bomber: Unmanned, Unlimited Range, Aimed at China (the-diplomat.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. military is developing its next generation bomber with Chinese anti-access strategy -the ability to stop any enemy force from coming to fight with things like carrier killer missiles- in mind. The new bomber will replace older platforms like the 1950's B-52, the 1970's B-1, and 1990's B-2 stealth bomber.

The new bomber will sport some unique qualities. It will have an option to be unmanned, will act similar to a UAV, have better stealth capabilities, will be connected to US intelligence networks to create a 'smart' battlefield environment, and have near unlimited range thanks to in-air refueling.

Comment Modern Perl is worth your time and consideration (Score 2) 519

First, I should state that it's really not about the language, it's about the coder. You can build great and crappy things with any language. And every language has it's warts.

That said, the best language I've used in the past 20 years of programming has got to be Modern Perl. Not the chicken scratch Perl you saw 5 or 10 years ago, but Modern Perl. Here are some of the strengths of modern Perl:

It's object system: https://metacpan.org/module/Moose
It's web frameworks, especially Dancer: https://metacpan.org/module/Dancer
It's ORM: https://metacpan.org/module/DBIx::Class
It's package installer: https://metacpan.org/module/App::cpanminus


And so much more. Do yourself a favor and at least have a look at Perl.
Idle

Submission + - The Home-built Dark Knight Batmobile (gizmag.com) 1

ElectricSteve writes: RM Auctions recently declared James Bond’s Aston Martin DB5 to be “the world’s most famous car,” but there's no doubt another contender for that title – the Batmobile. One thing that muddies the waters a bit is the fact that the term “Batmobile” actually describes at least three different vehicles: the modified Lincoln Futura concept car from the 60s TV series, the vaguely Corvette-shaped 1989-and-beyond movie cars and now the car from the most recent two movies, the military-spec Tumbler. Michigan-based movie props artist Bob Dullam really likes the Tumbler, so he did what any of us would do in his position – he built one of his own from scratch.

Comment They reject everything for stupid reasons (Score 1) 397

We were rejected because somehow Polaroid might object to our online photo sharing application. All Apple would say was:

"WebGUI Gallery appears to include features that associate with POLAROID or resemble Polaroid photographs. Polaroid has previously objected to other applications that include such features and believes that they infringe its rights."

We don't mention Polaroid, we don't produce physical pictures. The only thing that could be construed as being related to Polaroid is the template that we used on the web site, which has a white border around the photograph. So if now all white bordered photographs resemble Polaroid's IP, I think that the whole world is in trouble.

Slashdot Top Deals

The reward of a thing well done is to have done it. -- Emerson

Working...