Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Skewed story (Score 1) 114

by galluk (#61982911) Attached to: Australia Leads the World in Coal Emissions Per Capita

Nuclear is not a viable political option in Aus. There was some talk a couple of weeks ago about it. The Chief Science for NSW advised the state government that to create the expertise to run a nuclear industry would take 15 years. Also from a $ point of view in Australia has over 1,200 years of coal supply at current annual consumption. Which is a lot of taxes to forego. I agree that Australia has the capability of implementing the solutions you mention but I donâ(TM)t think it has the political will unless pressure is applied externally.

Comment Re:If only we knew (Score 1) 575

by galluk (#61890057) Attached to: America is Choking Under an 'Everything Shortage'

The lockdown affected VIC & NSW the most. The other States & Territories (TAS, SA, QLD, NT & WA) have had snap lockdowns and they closed the borders if outbreaks occurred elsewhere but they are not in lockdown and have minimum Health restrictions.
Our total death rate from COVID for all of Australia is less than 1,500 of a population of 25 million as at today. Also the experience of COVID if you live in Melbourne (VIC) is very different to someone who has lived in Perth (WA). Saying something has occurred in Australia is next to meaningless as the Health measures are state based and the only Federal restrictions have been around International Travel.

There is strong support in the community for the Health measures and the elections that have been held the state Governments with the strongest restrictions have been re-elected. Also remember we have mandatory voting in Australia. So while from outside it may seem draconian the health measures are working and have strong support as we can see their impact.

The reason why we are behind in vaccinations is that the Federal Government only did deals for Pfizer & AZ vaccinations and we did not have enough supply earlier this year. Supply of vaccines has been resolved and we now have access to Pfizer, AZ & Moderna. VIC first dose is 86% (16+) and we are due for lockdown to end this month. In Australia there is a policies in place regarding vaccinations i.e. no jab no play for childcare centres. So we tend to have a high vaccination rate.

From our point of view we watched in horror at what has occurred overseas at the number of deaths.

However with all of that we are experiencing shortages with staff as we usually have a lot of Backpacker to pick fruit, work in cafes and bars. Once the borders open in Nov this should start to resolve itself. As we have little inward migration the job markets especially in technology is very competitive but once the borders open we are expecting an influx of new people.

Comment Re:Government cloud = bad news (Score 1) 121

Buy a bunch of IBM Mainframes

Yeah, that always ends the same way; 20 years from now a bunch of generals and majors are testifying before Congress about their hopelessly obsolete, crashing, laughably insecure, ultra expensive mainframe systems that will take 10 years and $200 billion to replace.

No, US cloud providers have shown they are able to provide reliable, secure service and the DOD should leverage this where they can. Does that mean everything should be in the commercial cloud? No, obviously not. But a large fraction of DOD computing needs can live on commercial cloud systems.

And it would make sense and be a win for the US if it were done properly by adopting a competitive model that leveraged ongoing competition among cloud providers. But no, it's yet another smoke filled room scam that produces one winner and forgoes any further competition. One wonders how many Potemkin non-profit "chairman" jobs Bezos had to fund to employ the sons and daughters in-law of Congress persons to secure the DOD contract.

Regarding the price of $200 Billion and 10 years to replace, do you think your estimate is a little on the low side?
The Almighty Buck

EA Flip-Flops On Battlefield: Heroes Pricing, Fans Angry 221

Posted by Soulskill from the put-your-money-where-your-gun-is dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Ben Kuchera from Ars Technica is reporting that EA/DICE has substantially changed the game model of Battlefield: Heroes, increasing the cost of weapons in Valor Points (the in-game currency that you earn by playing) to levels that even hardcore players cannot afford, and making them available in BattleFunds (the in-game currency that you buy with real money). Other consumables in the game, such as bandages to heal the players, suffered the same fate, turning the game into a subscription or pay-to-play model if players want to remain competitive. This goes against the creators' earlier stated objectives of not providing combat advantage to paying customers. Ben Cousins, from EA/DICE, argued, 'We also frankly wanted to make buying Battlefunds more appealing. We have wages to pay here in the Heroes team and in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy. Battlefield Heroes is a business at the end of the day and for a company like EA who recently laid off 16% of their workforce, we need to keep an eye on the accounts and make sure we are doing our bit for the company.' The official forums discussion thread is full of angry responses from upset users, who feel this change is a betrayal of the original stated objectives of the game."

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing recedes like success. -- Walter Winchell

Close