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


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

Comment Re:mdsolar (Score 1) 108

Or we could change the space treaties to allow it to be sent into the sun.

Do you have any idea what kind of energy it takes to send something to the sun? Earth's orbital speed is around 70,000 mph, that's 70,000 mph you have to decelerate your payload.

Well, we don't really care at what speed it hits the sun at, nor what damage is done to the vessel carrying it. For all that matters it could be a simple slingshot manuever to set it on the right trajectory so the craft could even be re-usable - e.g re-usable stage 1 and 2 rockets to move to orbit (see SpaceX), stage 3 connects to an existing orbiter that then takes its times (6 month? year? doesn't really matter) to set the item on trajectory, and returns. Stage 3 departs from orbiter and without using any extra fuel could make it's way into the sun - really, the sun has this awesome thing called a gravity well, and all you need to do is get the stage 3 section into that gravity well and the sun will do the rest. There's numerous methods to do it, and they're all really cheap from space. (FYI - this is basically how a mass cannon works).

BTW, the orbiter doesn't have to actually enter the gravity well, just be able to set the mass on a trajectory that it could not escape the gravity well.

Speaking of the payload, nuclear waste consists of heavy atoms. Heavier than lead, or gold. Have fun getting that even into earth/sun orbit at an acceptable cost.

1 ton of material is the same regardless of whether it is gold, feathers, or nuclear waste.

But then, who said we had to do it by the ton? We could do it in 50kg blocks for all it matters - or allow the orbiter (see above) to collect several groupings of cheaper payloads to send together.

IOW, this is really a lot cheaper than you think. The biggest cost is raising it to space to start with; and that's probably cheaper than drilling into a mountain every few years to make more capacity for additional nuclear materials, and everything else that goes into it.

Comment Re:Deaths per terawatt... (Score 1) 108

Just the deaths per terawatt statistics of nuclear compared to everything else should make people rethink nuclear energy.

I wonder what the world would be like had the 3MI not happened, and Carter's permanent moratorium on new power reactor construction not happened. Energy too cheap to meter, perhaps?

There's been new nuclear plants that have gone online since Carter. It's primarily the EPA, Green Peace, and the liberals that don't want and get in the way of Nuclear - despite it being the safest of all energy technologies, with the fewest injuries/deaths world wide - even when you take into account 3MI, Chernobyl, and Fukishima. It's one of those delicious ironies - find something that does what they like, and they'll still find something to complain about in order to reject it.

Comment Re:mdsolar (Score 1) 108

If, of course, you choose to ignore the tiny little problem of nuclear waste, for which the current policy is "it's not my generation's problem". Call back when we have viable fusion power.

It's only a problem because we allow it to be one. There are many solutions to the problem...most of the best of which we have said no to for primarily political reasons, namely from the Cold War at that.

We could re-use it for things that have lower fissile material requirements, etc.

Or we could change the space treaties to allow it to be sent into the sun. It's not like we don't send nuclear material into space already - most satellites are powered through either solar and/or nuclear, and many deep space satellites are nuclear based. Just saying the argument of "what happens if it explodes and goes across the atmosphere" isn't really a valid argument - and even then, we can manage that if we really wanted (separate capsule, appropriately lined, amount of fissile material allowed per capsule, parachutes, etc).

Comment Re:This could be the start (Score 1) 294

Part of me thinks the judge made this somewhat out of the box ruling with the intent to push this issue that patent trolls waste millions of dollars on up the court system and see if the Supreme court can make a more universal judgment/precedent. But it begs the question, is the Supreme court technically savvy enough to understand the details of software coding and development?

Considering that the Supreme Court has not actually approved any software patents; only the 10th Federal Circuit Courts (the courts specifically dealing with patents) has approved them. Expect the Circuit Court to overrule this judge; but expect the Supreme Court to uphold the ruling.

Even in the cases where the Supreme Court has ruled on cases involving software, they have either (a) invalidated the patent for some reason other than software (e.g Bilski), or it was not a pure software case and fund that software was only a component of the whole (e.g Deihr); in all such cases the Supreme Court has essentially remained silent on the ability of Software itself to be patented, and has also never upheld a software patent.

Comment Re:Definition of technology flawed (Score 2) 294

And a boat cannot do a damned thing unless it is placed in a river. What does that have to do with anything?


A boat may not be useful without being placed in a body of water (ocean, lake, river, etc); but it can do something.

For instance, you can sit in it; you can run the engine(s) if there any are present; you can move it about using a trailer, fork lift, or other means. Alternatively, you could throw a party on it - if there is sufficient space, or even live on it - even out of water.

Comparatively, with software if it not compiled for a specific computer, then it is no more useful than a book - you can read it, but it cannot do a thing. Furthermore, software will never flip a bit in a computer processor or RAM (often the terminology used to make software patentable), it can only tell a computer processor to do so.

Comment Re:Genesis 6:3 NIV (Score 2) 290

Noah was born pre-Flood. And if you follow the geneologies, they lifespans increasingly shorten with each successive generation; thus not an immediate effect but something that took a few generations to take in.

Also... the bible is not a trusted reference source. It was written by people who weren't there, repeatedly re-written by people with poor translation skills (not to mention political agendas to achieve). Each new interpretation of "The word of God" heralded as an unchanging, perfect holy text. Codswallop!

Is' generally taken that:

Genesis 1:1-2:2 was God's communication of events to Adam.
Genesis 2:3-4 (at least) were Adam's record.
Genesis 4-9 were Noah's record.
Genesis 10 was a record of Noah's sons.
Genesis 11-25 was the record of Abraham (Abram).

Now keep in mind that per the Genealogical records, Adam knew God, and Adam and Noah's parents would have been able to know Adam; furthermore, Noah would have known Methuselah who would have certainly known Adam. Thereby Genesis 1-9 are fully accountable via eyewitness, the witness of which is likely Enoch who will likely be one of the witness' in Revelations.

Furthermore, again per Genealogical records, Abram as a young man would have been able to know Noah, certainly his father would have been able to. Thereby extending the eyewitness recording through the life of Abram; likewise it can be extended down through Isaac, Jacob (Israel), and Joseph - overlapping significantly with records from Egypt for most of the life of Joseph, and therefore verifiable via historic record through events that impacted the whole Mesopotamian Region during that time; likewise the start of the book of Exodus is also historically verifiable through the records of Egypt.

Now, how many of those records have survived since the fir of the Library of Alexandria is a different matter; though they should be able to be verifiable through other historic sources as well.

Comment Re: Genesis 6:3 NIV (Score 1) 290

A hypotheses that goes around some Christan circles is that with the lack of all the extra water in the sky (Gen 1:7) people were exposed to higher levels of radiation (UV, etc). This causing higher mutation/genetic entropy resulting in shorter life spans.

So the Science makes a flawed assumption - that everything today works and looks like it always has. IOW, what we measure today f.e for the barometric pressure was always the barometric pressure on the earth. However, the events of Genesis 6 shows that we cannot necessarily make that assumption - it is likely flawed. Now as to your reference, Genesis 1 refers the waters above and the waters below, with the waters below being gathered and having set boundaries - oceans, lakes, etc. We're not really told what the waters above were, but they are only referred to again in Genesis 6-9 as the flood starts. Speculation is:

  • a barrier of water the surrounded the earth
  • a higher humidity throughout the entire atmosphere (thus a different barometric pressure, among other things)

Personally, I think it was likely a higher humidity/barometric pressure, and more uniform atmosphere around the entire earth. In either case, it would be hard to determine based on current Scientific methods; and may even be impossible unless someone was actually there to record data.

Comment Re:Bible is contradictory (Score 1) 290

Funny... refuting chapter 6 with Jeanne Calment living to 122 in contemporary times.

Bases covered, you see.

You should pay attention to that Presley quote in your sig. A better formulation, though, is:

Objective reality is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it isn't going away.

You can quote me if you like. :)

Wrong there too....122 is rounded is 120. So it doesn't refute anything, and you can always look at it as a general average - so expecting that the average would not be able to exceed that. However, even then...122 is an outlier (statistically) and even today the number of people >100 are generally outliers compared to the greater population and that hasn't changed much.

So in all honesty, 122 doesn't refute Genesis Chapter 6; and therefore your reference to 930 years from Genesis 5 when trying to refute Genesis 6 is wholly wrong and without any merit due to basics of frames of reference.

In short, you're argument is without merit.

Comment Re:Bible is contradictory (Score 1) 290

Genesis 6:3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years

Yes, sure, that's why Jeanne Calment lived to 122.

Not to mention that whole 930-years thing laid out in chapter five of the Book of Genesis (OT.) But by all means, pick the passages that support the pop culture blather of the day, and ignore the rest.

The Lord is clearly all-powerful... and innumerate. Or dishonest. Or fiction.

Funny...refuting something that occurs in Chapter 6 with information from Chapter 5.

Comment Re:Genesis 6:3 NIV (Score 4, Informative) 290

Yeah but Genesis 9:29 also says:

And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

Noah was born pre-Flood. And if you follow the geneologies, they lifespans increasingly shorten with each successive generation; thus not an immediate effect but something that took a few generations to take in.

So I guess the LORD forgot, eh? And don't forget about Adad, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor and of course Abraham.

Most of those you quote were Pre-Flood; however, that doesn't change the lifespan curve that occurred post flood. Abram (who could have known Noah as their lifetimes slightly overlapped) made it to 175 (Genesis 25:7). Joseph (3 generations later) only made it to 110. Genesis 50:22-26.

As with Death in Genesis 3, the shorted lifespan did not happen immediately. Could it have? Probably, but that would have had several major consequences:

  • Slower re-population of the earth post-flood
  • Inability to communicate the past to future generations using eye-witnesses that were able to fully establish what actually happened through numerous generations across the vast majority of the populace.

Comment Re:Beautiful (Score 1) 157

This will certainly save a lot of money for enterprises. I expect it will be the RARE company that will actually need 5Gbps per workstation. Most can probably get by on 100Mbps.

Anyone that upgrades to VOIP will need a 1Gbps network, preferably with CAT6; CAT5e is okay but CAT6 really enables it.

Comment Re:So no cable ripping, but... (Score 2) 157

I don't see why. If the cable is the same the jacks use all the cables. At least when I put the head on the cables I connected them all.

It's a matter of the frequency tolerance and ability for the cable to carry the requisite signals. CAT5 doesn't have the tolerance for 1GBps transmission while CAT5e does, but CAT6 and CAT7 do even better as the signal tolerances are significantly improved and able to push higher frequencies.

Most likely, when they say that you don't need to tear out the cables, they're referring to CAT6 cable installations. It you have CAT5 you'll definitely need to upgrade the cable; you will *likely* need to upgrade if you only have CAT5e. Nearly everyone has CAT5e at minimum and many have been upgrading already to CAT6; so if they can pull the 2.5Gbps and 5Gbps on CAT6 then most everyone will be quite happy that the investment they just did (in the last 5 years) to handle 1Gbps will be easily upgradeable to the new standard with just router and NIC changes - much like the 100Mbps to 1Gbps switch was with CAT5e installations.

Comment Re:Channel saturation (Score 3, Insightful) 160

You're the sort of fat fuck who thinks an "all you cat eat" buffet means you can just stuff everything in your mouth.

Pretty much EVERY service is priced on the basis that not everyone will use it in the most costly way.

Just because you're incapable of understanding a complex society that's based on implicit understanding and values rather than strictly written rules, it doesn't mean most human beings can't manage fine in it.

Don't use your disability as a reason to fuck things up for others.

"Unlimited" should have the very simple meaning of 24/7/3600 usage of the bandwidth you are purchasing as a customer of a given ISP. It should be impossible then to hit the datacap since your modem should not be able to exceed such usage.

"Limited" can be any fraction of that, e.g a 50 Mbps service with 600GB data cap would be "Limited" not "Unlimited" since even a 1 Mbps connection could exceed 1 TB of data per month.

IOW, Truth In Advertising.

Comment Re:Channel saturation (Score 2) 160

Personally, if I'm sold a 30Mbps/5Mbps cable/dsl connection, I expect to be able to saturate that channel 24/7 if I want to. ISPs should provision accordingly.

Yes, the data cap equation should be pretty simple:

(# of Bits Per Second)*(#of seconds per billing period)

Which when (# bps) is set to what the customer is purchasing should be *impossible* for the customer to exceed.
Further, the modems should report appropriate usage for the same billing period in a way that customers can verify (e.g measuring data going to the modem using a tool like OpenWRT's bandwidth measurements).

Slashdot Top Deals

You know, Callahan's is a peaceable bar, but if you ask that dog what his favorite formatter is, and he says "roff! roff!", well, I'll just have to...