Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment The benefits of Single Payer (Score 1) 1

IT failures have increased by 129 per cent since Shared Services Canada took over tech support for the entire government five years ago. Not only that, the memo says, the duration of each outage has increased by 98 per cent. "Its 'one size fits all' IT shared services model has negatively impacted police operations, public and officer safety and the integrity of the criminal justice system," reads the memo.

But Single Payer eliminates redundancy, thus lowering the costs while improving the services. Does it not?

Comment Be careful generalizing (Score 1) 88

IQ is like height in basketball. The best basketball players aren't the tallest people in the world but they are all taller than average.

A very good analogy.

two people with high IQ will out-perform a single person of super high-IQ.

That statement is task dependent. For some tasks it is true and for others not so much. There also are failure modes that multiple people are subject to that an individual is not. Much like your previous statement, crowds often are smarter than individuals but not universally so in all cases.

Also, there have been lots of data collected on IQs and success.

That is contingent on what you define as "success". I'm familiar with some of the studies you are probably referring to but be careful with such generalizations.

Comment Re: Rockets are too expensive (Score 1) 275

Adding more energy seems unlikely to help.

Taking away said energy OTOH is a different matter. That's something that thrusters at the far end of the space tether can do.

Again, not a freshman-physics pendulum. We're not talking spherical cows uniformly radiating milk here. The upwards and downwards payloads would be in different places on the tether (except momentarily) and so would each be doing there own thing to complicate the system.

But in a matter that is significant less worse than your original problem.

You might find it entertaining to watch some youtube videos of 2- and 3-section pendulum, elastic pendulums, and so on. They don't work and play well with others.

So what? We know how to control stuff a lot more complicated than that.

Comment Re:Smart enough to REALLY f*ck things up??? (Score 1) 88

What are you going to do when those super-smart sneakers get hacked and decide you should go somewhere else? Or the battery catches fire and they won't untie themselves? Or you become the target of thieves because if you can afford to waste money on intelligent sneakers (because you obviusly have more money than brains) what other swag can they snag off you? Or if someone SWATs your sneakers? You're walking along and your sneakers are broadcasting alerts to everyone in the area that you're a wanted child molester?

On second thought, I can't wait until our idiot overlords start going around with their intelligent sneakers.

Comment Re:What can SpaceX do with their hardware? (Score 1) 275

Presumably, we'd launch more of them, *if* we wanted to go back to the Moon.

Hasn't been the case in practice. Saturn V, Shuttle, Constellation, and now SLS have all sucked oxygen out of the room for actual exploration and development of the Moon and elsewhere. They've never achieved the launch frequency, reliability, or cost savings to justify their use. And aside from the Saturn V era, we've never had the need for the capabilities (particularly, the large payload and fairing size) these rockets bring,

For example, this blog post discusses an alternate past where the Shuttle wasn't built and NASA instead continued on with the Saturn 1B and a small reusable manned vehicle (say 3 people plus cargo, a bit better than the Apollo capsule in payload).

They could have still flown everything that the Shuttle flew for 30 years and have a demonstration of a reusable vehicle at a small fraction of the cost of the Shuttle.

Another alternate past. Consider that we knew after the Challenger accident that the Space Shuttle would never achieve a launch frequency that would be economical. Discontinue the Shuttle in 1990. From that point on, there was only one thing that ever required the features of the Shuttle, the Hubble Telescope repair missions which simply weren't valuable. Instead, hustle the development of the EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) program (which built the Delta IV and AtlasV rockets) so that it was developed a decade earlier in the early 1990s instead of the early 2000s.

Then everything that was done with the Shuttle could then be done with EELVs, such as building the ISS or launching space telescope replacements for Hubble, with the use of EELVs, saving tens of billions of dollars over the 20 year period through 2010 and boosting commercial space flight in the process. And when Falcon 9 was developed, it would easily slide into this NASA strategy where everything is launched on rockets of that size.

Comment Thank you, Hillary Clinton! (Score 1, Flamebait) 30

It is only thanks to the thoughtful regulation by the omniscient and benevolent government bureaucrats, that the giant and heartless KKKorporation$ can be forced to improve services and lower costs.

Had Trump won, he would've appointed a RethugliKKKan to head the FCC and the consumer would've gotten butt-raped again!

So nice to have a sensible woman at the helm instead!

Comment Re: No surprise... (Score 0) 158

every one else has to sell themselves into permanent lifetime servitude just to temporarily use their product

- if you feel that an Intel processor is worth selling yourself into slavery then you really must need that processor, don't you? Even then you are getting something out of the transaction that is beneficial for you, otherwise why would you sell yourself????????????

Comment Re:Misread the headline... (Score 1) 150

Ha ha ha ha ha, fuck off, asshole. For the record, a great many of us have been using Slashdot since year zero, before you. Yet we never felt the need to make a name for ourselves. You are a narcissistic asshole that only registered a username because you want some sense of self-gratification. Since registering a username does not require verifiable credentials and is open to everyone, that fact that you DID so means nothing. Really, truly, it means nothing. So, if you're unhappy about a response, attack the substance, not the sender.

Seek professional help.

Comment Re: How is FILMING "speech"? (Score 1) 174

Constitutional rights don't give you the right to break other laws. In the case you mention, people entered a Federal building in disguise and fiddled with the phones. Those actions are themselves illegal, regardless of what legal or protected activities went on.

Very true, yes. Which only confirms, that the First Amendment has nothing to do with this — the actions of the video-taper are illegal or not depending on whether or not his video-taping (or any accompanying activity, such as entering under false pretenses or disobeying police order to stop) is illegal or not. That is, his video-taping is currently legal simply because there is no law making it illegal — not because it is somehow covered by the First Amendment.

And if the State of Texas — or the city of Fort Worth — ever make it illegal to record police activity, Phillip Turner's future such actions will become just as illegal as those of James O'Keefe.

Once again, I do not dispute that Phillip's actions were legal, and James' were not (in the case cited). Just that neither had anything to do with the First Amendment...

Comment wiping screen is the last thing you want (Score 1) 226

I was with you until you said it brings up a wiping screen. I doubt very much that the feds/TSA really give a crap that your last facebook post said you think Trump is an Ahole, otherwise they'd be detaining about 50% of everyone travelling, but the moment they see your phone is wiping itself they will assume you must have something to far more significant to hide.
A much better bet would be to have a removeable SD card and/or a password that silently logs in to a second environment which just has a bunch of bland work-related texts and emails and no social media accounts or anything else.
I can't believe there isn't already an app for this.

Comment Re:Not to be a wet blanket... (Score 1) 275

It doesn't really make sense to start with a factory on the Moon to produce things that we don't need yet.

Depends on the lead time and the need. There already is some need for propellant in space at costs less than a few thousand dollars per kg.

We can launch everything from Earth, until we need such large quantities that it becomes cost effective to produce them on the Moon. I expect we'll never reach that point.

Depends on what inputs are needed for activity on the Moon. If everything coming from the Moon has to come from Earth first, it'll never make sense. If it just takes a few tens of millions of dollars initial input, plus a few hundred thousand dollars per year in telepresence work to deliver hundreds of tons of liquid oxygen propellant to low Earth orbit, then it'll pay for itself fast.

Comment Re:"Police found Purinton 80 miles away at Applebe (Score 1) 1046

Now consider this - that ammendment also says this has to be 'well regulated'.

There are loads of gun control laws and the only people they affect are those who follow the rules...they have no real impact on criminals as we see time and time again. I would say that in general firearms are pretty well regulated, but you can't regulate intent and intent can change at any time. How do you regulate or control intent?

Slashdot Top Deals

I just need enough to tide me over until I need more. -- Bill Hoest