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 Re:Let's face it (Score 2) 105

As I recall, the ledger that was leaked also included a salary for Peters, which is a big no-no in these cases, and probably the thing that pushed CBS over the line -- well, that and financing a studio to make more productions. He wasn't taking a huge a cut, I think it was in the $30k region, but it definitely made the Axanar project more than a not-for-profit fan film.

Comment Won't Be Star Trek (Score 2) 105

The only thing I can read from this is that in order to meet CBS/Viacom/Paramount requirements, it can't retain any of the Star Trek elements we'd like to see. In which case, it will be just another space combat short with no connection to any greater framework that makes it have relevance. Peters' bluster has not only ruined his Axanar project that would have brought an interesting bit of Trek 'history' to light, but it has ruined the chances of any other fan film becoming a serious production worthy of consideration, thanks to those stringent guidelines CBS understandably developed.

Comment Re:News for Nazis (Score 2) 1321

Oh, it works, if my discussions with friends who voted for Hillary are any measure. Every last one of them conceded Hillary's weaknesses, but insisted she was a better pick than misogynistic, homophobic, racist Trump. And I can't really blame them for that opinion based on how much the media drilled that impression in. But while I agree that there are people who voted for the Great Pumpkin specifically because of the exaggerated and hysterical rhetoric used by the media, I think Hillary's defeat primarily came from her campaign's smugness about victory. The final weeks before the election, the message was consistently "Hillary's got this one, and Trump doesn't stand a chance." What hubris! What stupidity! That basically told all her supporters that it wasn't critical they get out and vote, while telling Trump's just how desperate the situation was.

But then, Hillary's campaign was a series of mismanaged debacles.

Comment Re:Remote work is validated once again. (Score 1) 140

Yeah, for my WfH days I don't deliberately work more hours (I may make up some if I had to leave work earlier on other days), although having a child I have to take to school removes that 'Wake up 5 minutes before the morning stand-up call' temptation.

I may end up working more hours just because it's a better environment to get work done, or I decide to have a 2 hour nap in the middle of the day.

Comment Re:Remote work is validated once again. (Score 1) 140

I think an expectation of remote work ability (at least after a couple of months or so of joining) should be an expectation for anyone looking to move company these days. Especially if you have children it gives you the necessary flexibility to cope with the situation. For most it would be 2 or 3 times a week, face to face time may still be important/necessary for some to retain humanity .

The last thing I would want to do is sit in a car in a traffic jam daily. Luckily I've avoided that throughout my career so far (admittedly this is easier in the UK/London than the US, but OTOH I have Southern Rail to contend with).

Comment Re:Work and cars (Score 1) 140

TBH pretty much the only exercise I get is the walk to and from the train station for work (at both ends). Which luckily probably totals over three miles a day, and it's an enforced routine.

Problem is, work has recently started an aggressive Working from Home culture (well, 2 or 3 days a week). Guess how much I walk on those days... sure, I eat better, but that's about it. "Bed -> Desk (via Kitchen for coffee/lunch/dinner) -> Sofa -> Bed" isn't the greatest daily routine. Saves a decent amount of time and money though (especially when you factor in work lunch and occasional beers).

Comment Re:Catastrophic man-made global warming (Score 2) 269

Perhaps, perhaps not. Venus is still very poorly understood. In its high temperature environment its conditions are largely self-sustaining (preventing the sequestration of CO2 in rock), although it's also unstable, prone to broad temperature and pressure swings. It also appears to have undergone a global resurfacing event about 300-500mya, if that gives a clue as to how unstable the planet as a whole is. ;) We don't know what caused it, or really anything about it. Part of the planet's properties are now a result of it having lost its water rather than being a cause, such as its hard crust. Obviously its lack of a magnetic field is responsible for its loss of water, but we don't know exactly when or why it disappeared (there are of course theories... I had always just assumed it was the slow rotation rate, but the last research I read suggested that not enough to account for it). Other issues as to how Venus ended up as it did may be related to size - although it's only a bit smaller than Earth, that may be the initial factor that set its fate in motion - for example, its lithosphere in general appears to be thicker and higher viscosity on Earth, which could have hindered or prevented plate tectonics, and thus subduction of carbonates.

Either way, it's a mess now at the surface (though rather comfy ~55km up ;) ). And I'm not so sure I buy into some of the proposed ways to fix it (terraforming). For example, some have suggest mass drivers ejecting the atmosphere. Let's just say you can pull it off, and then you start building oxygen in the atmosphere - what happens next? The crust is something like 7-9% FEO; it's going to rust away whatever oxygen you make in short order.

Interestingly, I'd argue that this is possibly the salvation to Sagan's airborne-microbe concept for terraforming Venus. The main criticism is that if you engineered some sort of carbon-sequestering microbe on Venus (or artificial equivalent), you'd end up with a deep surface layer of graphite surrounded by some hugely hot, dense oxygen layer, and the atmosphere would explode. But that would never happen; at Venus surface temperatures and pressures, the surface rocks would rust away the oxygen as fast as it was created, even in tiny quantities, with the wind blowing the dust around to collect at low/eddy areas. So you're laying down bands of carbon and iron oxide as you burn through the planet's iron buffer. Where have we seen this before? Right, Earth, ~2,3 billion years ago, banded iron formations. Just like on Earth, you'd eventually burn through the iron and start to accumulate oxygen. But by then the graphite is already underground, buried in iron dust.

It's not a fast process. But it has precedent. Microbes already rusted at least one planet, and that planet's surface conditions weren't nearly as favorable for rusting as Venus's.

Comment Re:Catastrophic man-made global warming (Score 0, Troll) 269

I don't know how China managed to melt so much arctic ice, leading to the absurd situation that just a couple days before the winter solstice this year I went on a hike through the snowless mountains in Iceland among chirping songbirds digging for worms. All I have to say to China about this is: Best. Conspiracy. Ever. Well played, China. Well played.

Slashdot Top Deals

As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error. -- Weisert

Working...