Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment True that (Score 1) 106

"does better in a socialist economy than in a capitalist one, because nuclear energy prefers to have the public do the cleanup, do the insurance, cover all of the losses and it only wants the profits."

This is precisely why the calls for "A free and open market with big government off our backs." is disastrous. In addition to little things like just think what it would be like if there were no regulation of meat, fuel, roads, drugs, doctors, chemical manufacturing, transport, storage, access, and I could go on and on.

The point being that if we want democracy, there has to be some way for limiting those stronger, richer, with more friends from becoming an issue for the less rich, less powerful, less popular. A society without limits is one with warlords and thugs running it.

Comment Re:Deforestation (Score 1) 146

You've left no room for bushes and grasses.

Bushes and grasses produce a lot of oxygen .

but it's not just oxygen production.
Offsetting use of a car for a year requires 5,000 pounds of woody material per year (not pure carbon he he but it is a lot of carbon).

Grass, bushes and algae do not lock up nearly as much carbon. Most of their carbon returns quickly to the environment as they are consumed and their smaller less sturdy bits rot quickly.

Comment Re:Dumb question, but where should we store them? (Score 2) 104

That actually does not sound too unreasonable of a process.

Except that it depends on
1: All PCs that open the file being uncompromised.
2: The distribution method for the file being uncompromised.
3: The printer used to create the hard copy being uncompromised.
4: If a network printer, no possibility of sniffing the unencrypted data going to the printer.

Modern printers and copiers are underrated as hacking subjects. There's no limit to what people print out, and they assume that it's a very safe thing to do. Yet if i have access to a modern printer or print server, I can ask for a copy being mailed to me of every printed document. When was the last time the IT department eyeballed the configuration for each printer, looking for anomalies?

Comment Re:Dumb question, but where should we store them? (Score 3, Insightful) 104

But beyond that, all it has is a history of encrypted strings.

And if they reject the password you used before the last one, it's a strong indication that they either don't salt, or use the same salt over again.

What gets me is the systems that have intricate requirements for the password, like it having to consist of both upper and lower case letters, and at least one digit, but no more than two, and at least one character that's not neither a letter or a digit. Don't those who create those rules know that each rule reduces the amount of valid passwords for a given password length, making the hacker's life much easier? Requiring a password that doesn't fall for a single-pass crack is far superior to a password of the same length with plenty of restrictions.
Requiring an extra letter in the password is a much better way of ensuring strength than deliberately reducing the strength.

Comment Re:It's okay, inflation is only 1.6% (Score 1) 200

Look at the BLS hedonic inflation adjustment page. Besides some long hairy formulas that's all they give.

Adjusting for inflation can be tricky- I admit that. New products can destroy several older markets (no mp3players any more).

But the facts are that all meat is up about 25% over the last 6 years. TV Dinner are up bout 25% over the last 6 years (and showing strong signs of going to 35% soon). Vegetables are up over 25%. Admittedly Gasoline is down. The things people actually buy are going up faster than CPI. But the closer your income is to being just enough to buy food, the stronger the inflation you have experienced (the poor and the elderly)

So the BLS hedonically assumes that as beef gets to expensive you'll go to turkey. Or when your 27" CRT dies, you'll get a big screen TV.

Comment Re:Am I reading this right? (Score 1) 70

The weird thing, if it is the COPVs, is... there was so much attention focused on them after CRS-7. It'd be weird if this was the cause. And extremely frustrating, too, as they're not manufactured in-house. SpaceX surely tests the tanks, so they too would bear some responsibility for it getting past their test procedures, if this is the cause. Personally (as I mentioned elsewhere in the comments), having a composite vessel sitting in liquid oxygen always strikes me as a dangerous situation to begin with.... if we were good at maintaining LOX-composite compatibility, we'd be making the stages themselves out of composites rather than aluminum.

Of course, the COPVs aren't the only part of the "helium pressurization system". Still concerning that whatever it was slipped past them.

Comment Re:Huh. (Score 3, Interesting) 70

The helium isn't used for cooling; it's a pressurant. It's lower mass to make a small COPV and have that store your pressurant in it than to have the whole LOX tank be strong enough to withstand the pressure.

It's always bothered me, the concept of having a COPV sitting around in LOX, though. Ignoring the thermal cycling, LOX and epoxy aren't exactly fast friends. We don't make LOX tanks out of composites because composites tend to become impact sensitive in LOX (there've been some attempts, but it's still an active reseach field, not a "solved problem"). Not sure there's that much difference between making your whole tank out of composites vs. having a composite tank inside of one. I don't know what SpaceX does, if anything, to try to protect them, but the general concept has always concerned me.

Comment Re:Smarter Aliens (Score 1) 278

To put it another way: the total mass of the universe is about 180000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 kilograms, which is the mass equivalent of 16200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 joules. There is no shortage of "resources" in the universe. Even the rarest of "resources" is available in unthinkable abundance to any entity that has a range broader than a single planet. Not like it's particularly easy to actually exhaust resources on a given planet; you just move from the easiest ones to the much more abundant, but harder to access ones (while simultaneously your technology advances with time, making resources in general more accessible; prices are based on the competition between these two factors, but in the long term generally follow a downward trend)

Slashdot Top Deals

Two percent of zero is almost nothing.