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


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

Comment Re: Sociopaths gonna sociopath. What's new? (Score 4, Interesting) 226

More progressives looking to play with numbers to justify whining about rich people

Your bias sees these studies as part of a political movement, mine sees them as part of the strangely recursive science of anthropology. From the moment we are born to the day we lose our mind, watching others is how we navigate the society we find ourselves in. Those at the top of the totem pole are no longer trying to navigate, they are either trying to steer or have anchored in a safe and pleasant harbour.

Comment Re:Grid Scale Batteries (Score 3, Insightful) 108

Solyndra was a bet that silicon prices would remain high. It was a way to get more power out of less silicon. The bet was wrong. With the drop in price in silicon, their death was inevitable. They also had a weird design decision, going for the concentrator. It made sense (in the economics of the time) to go for either concentrators or CIGS, but not both.

That said, the government took way too much flak - politically motivated - over Solyndra. With any diverse profile of startup investments, you expect some to fail. Economists analyzing the ARRA post-facto have been by and large given it quite positive evaluations for its effects on the economy. The loans program office had already wiped out the Solyndra loss just two years later.

Comment Re:You have the right to remain silent (Score 2) 114

I suggest you use it. There is never anything to gain from talking to the police. Ever. The idea of the policeman as keeper of the peace is dead in Canada as one by one rights in the charter are ignored "for the public good".

Fortunately the right to remain silent is still valid.

True, there is a possibility that in talking to the police you will inaccurately draw some suspicion towards yourself.

However, the stronger possibility is that you will accurately direct some suspicion towards the guilty party, and perhaps prevent future crimes.

I, for one, believe in motives other than pure self-interest.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 977

Should have been "alumium". Next best is "aluminum" (like platinum, molybdenum, most all of the classic elements like plumbum, argentum, etc). "Aluminium" is right out. It was derived from from alumina, not "aluminia"; the i is supposed to be the joining stem (lithia/lithium, magnesia/magnesium, titania/titanium, etc). There are a couple element names that are as poorly formed as "aluminium", but not many.

Not to mention that Davy was the one who named it, and he named it "aluminum", but suggested "alumium" as an alternative.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 1) 977

1) US troops were in neither Iraq nor Libya during their last elections.

2) Afghanistan's elections are supervised by international monitors, recognized by the international community, and not widely boycotted by entire segments of the population who don't consider the new "government" - imposed by a foreign military just weeks earlier and headed by a local mobster - legitimate or having the right to hold elections.

Even when the US was in Iraq (before they got kicked out, before they were subsequently begged to come back when Iraq was being overrun by Daesh...), Iraqis elected a government that was pro-Iran and hostile to the US. The largest party in the 2005 elections, with double the votes of the next closest contender, was the National Iraqi Alliance - a pro-Iranian islamist shia coalition. Maliki was chosen as prime minister. Do you think the US rigged the election to choose pro-Iranian anti-US government? What about in 2010 when pro-Iranian islamist nationalist power was consolidated, leading to the 2011 sinking of the SOFA? Think that was the result the US wanted? If the US was rigging Iraqi elections, they're pretty bloody terrible at it.

Comment Re:No, they didn't. (Score 1) 977

The Russians have always been good at lower performance, low cost rockets. Higher performance, they've always struggled with (particularly upper stages), which hindered their ability to launch probes (they only ever launched to the moon, Venus, and Mars, and with a rather disappointing track record). But they've built quite a few reliable, cheap lower stages and full low-performance orbital stacks. Mind you, a few of their lower-stage engines have turned out to be lemons (most notably the NK-15/33/43), but most have been real workhorses.

As for advanced tech in general, Russia has always been great at conceiving of and doing small scale implementations of very advanced concepts, but they've struggled to bring it into mass produced products. In that regard, I think the US has more to worry about concerning China; while they've long been known for mass production of lower-tech goods, they're getting increasingly good at mass production of high tech goods. The key to the US's success has been the combination of both high tech and skill in bulk production (albeit disadvantaged in that by labour costs)

US vs. Russia, I think the AK-47 vs. M-16 is a great analogy. The M-16 is by most objective standards a much better weapon - lighter, significantly lighter magazines per bullet (yet with nearly the same impact energy due to much faster velocity), significantly greater range in most regards, greater accuracy, faster to load and change magazines, easier to work the safety, predictable trigger behavior, all sorts of other ergonomic features, less recoil, better sights, and on and on down the line. Yet the AK-47 is the one that ended up ubiquitous around the world. It was simple, easy to make, had loose-fitting parts that weren't sensitive to manufacturing defects, was tough to break or jam with dirt and grime, etc. Very much reflective of the philosophy difference in general.

Russia seems to be trying to change today, trying to move more toward the American philosophy of production, in particular with respect to arms. For example they're trying to make their jets less "disposable", designed for lower downtimes and more flight hours like the US and Europe do, in order to be able to give their pilots more flight-time training (among other things), like the west does. But the changes have been incremental, not by leaps and bounds.

Comment Re: Notice the timing on the propaganda piece (Score 1) 977

Not according to every single UN report on the subject, up to and including just days ago, but by all means, keep being a dictator's internet propagandist.

FYI, since you're late to the party, there no longer is anything called "Al-Nusra". The name changed to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham when they broke from al-Qaeda.

Comment Re:No, they didn't. (Score 1) 977

Thank you, I read this headline and immediately sighed at the stupidity of it as well.

Russia likes doing these sort of braggadocious product unveilings; they're often rather disconnected from the reality of how their development goes. That's not to say that Russia can't develop good products - they can. But every time they make these product announcements it's like "The world will imminently fall at our feet due to the obvious revolutionary technological superiority of our latest offering!", when it's most often anything but.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 2) 977

Aluminum was largely the key to the "missile gap" that developed between the US and USSR in ICBMs in the 1960s. Before that, ICBMs had been liquid-fueled, which presented storage, complexity and bulk problems (also prevented underwater launch on submarines). The US discovered that the addition of aluminum powder to solid rocket propellant mixes would simultaneously increase ISP, thrust, density, and burn stability, and moved immediately toward the development of a series of solid ICBMs; the Soviets were late to catch onto the significance of aluminum in propellant mixes, and fell over half a decade behind as a consequence.

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 5, Insightful) 977

Quotation needed. And no, Ukraine does not count. They had a vote and voted to be part of Russia; that's a far cry from rolling in the tanks and taking it by force.

They did send in their military, that's who the "Little Green Men" were. Even Putin has publicly admitted this. The "vote" was held under occupation, not internationally recognized, boycotted by significant segments of the population, and even Russia at one point accidentally released the "real" numbers from the vote which didn't match the official ones.

Do recall that Russia is a country where Chechnya "voted for" United Russia (Putin's Party) 99% in 2001. Some parts of Grozny voted for "The Butcher of Grozny" by well over 100%. You seriously think that's legit?

Amazing how many apologists for Russia there are here. False equivalencies are clearly alive and well.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I have not the slightest confidence in 'spiritual manifestations.'" -- Robert G. Ingersoll