Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Harm (Score 1) 93

Kind of funny, our company is on the cutting edge actually, but in fluorescents, not LEDs, which are terrible for producing what we would consider high output of UVB or UVA. There is a huge difference between 320nm and 399nm, yet both are "UVA". 320nm has a lot more energy, and as you up in frequency (down in nm), it forms a Bell curve and gets exponentially more damaging. It also goes down in penetration, which is why you can get a quick flash burn from UVC (100nm-280nm) that doesn't penetrate more than a few layers of skin, but it is very damaging to those layers. And of course, the real kicker is how much you are getting.

And the reason it has that warning on it is simple: anything with any measurable amount of UVA must have that warning by law. The FDA regulates this (CFR 1040.20 for sunlamps, for example). I'm used to seeing them regularly for inspections. For some reason, general lighting fluorescents are excepted from this warning, even though they do produce a measurable amount of UVA.

Comment Re:EPA MPG != CAGE MPG (Score 1) 136

I was curious, and looked it up on the Bureau of Labor and Statistics website. If I'm reading that right, Civilian Labor Force, Employed, Percent of Population peaked in 2000 at 64.4%, which is 5% higher than 2000 levels.

Looking at the wikipedia definitions (especially that third image), I think the interesting metric is the employment-to-population ratio (i.e. all employed people over all people, eligible to work or not). That default view does show a 5% drop since about mid-2008 that never recovered. It was previously around 60% in the early eighties (if you adjust the graph to start from the earliest available year, 1948).

Also interesting is part time workers as a percentage of all workers, which was a sharp (3%) increase in 2009 and slowly dropping off at 0.2% per year (eyeballing it).

Other interesting stuff can be found in this PDF of charts. For example, on page 17 it shows that most of the layoffs in 2008/2009 were permanent, not temporary.

Thanks for leading me to look at this stuff; it's rather interesting.

Comment Re:Someone Please Explain The Glitch (Score 1) 80

Since the rest of the thread seems to have devolved into a lot of name calling, here is some results from 5 minutes of google searching:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/go...

http://ogleearth.com/2012/07/c...

In short, the restriction is not specifically on GPS, it's on mapping services in general. So they can use GPS to determine your location, but they're not allowed to show the details of the location you are at in high detail. Since you can see a (not very useful) map in Pokemon Go i guess it falls under the restriction? Either that or Niantic/Alphabet/Google wasn't willing to take the time to differentiate between requests to the map DB from Pokemon Go vs requests from Google Maps.

On the other hand the jitteryness of the location reported by GPS that you observed may or may not have been due to GPS jamming by North Korea:
http://www.reuters.com/article...

Comment Re:Harm (Score 3, Informative) 93

385nm is invisible to almost all humans, being on the long-ish wavelength of UV, and I wouldn't really say it was very damaging. Everyone likes to jump on the bandwagon like they actually know something about UV when in fact they don't. I've worked with it over 25 years, still do. Out of the millions of products sold, I've never had an injury reported. People do get hurt with UV, but that is exceedingly rare and usually because they didn't follow directions or did something really stupid.

Inside fiber, it is pretty harmless. Most plastics block it (excepting OP4 acrylic), the vast majority of paints absorb it and won't reflect it. It has a smaller wavelength, thus more waves per centimeter, ie: more data. I'm not saying their plan is good or bad, but blanket calling UV dangerous and not workable is ignorant.

Comment Re:Probably Trump (Score 1) 180

Tell me, why do you want to encourage the election participation of people who are too irresponsible to come up with $35* every five years? Is it because your platform sells well with people who can't think past tomorrow?

I'm a conservative, so encouraging poor people to vote actually hurts my party goals.

The problem is that I'm also a staunch defender of rights, and I feel that everyone should be allowed to vote as a right, and not some based on some arbitrary cutoff of responsibility.

[...] but go ahead and keep making the case that it's absolutely vital that people too stupid to get an ID every 5 years should be encouraged to vote.

To quote Malcom Reynolds: "who will speak for these people?"

They can speak for themselves. I stated above I'm fine funding programs that pay for the expenses associated with getting ID's.
If you're against voter ID you're pro-fraud. End of story. You can make any excuse you like (and toss in some claims about being conservative, too).
I see no reason to believe anyone who is making the same arguments as the administration, what with it's star liars Gruber, Rhodes, and the chosen successor Clinton.

Comment Re:Probably Trump (Score 0) 180

Getting an ID costs money in the US, so requiring an ID puts more strain on the poor than the working class.

The annual fee for a drivers license is around $35, a state-issued ID is around $30, and a passport costs $100.

When you're poor, that $35 could pay for 7 meals frugally made.

Social security cards are given out and replaced at no charge, but aren't generally accepted as an ID because they lack pictures.

Tell me, why do you want to encourage the election participation of people who are too irresponsible to come up with $35* every five years? Is it because your platform sells well with people who can't think past tomorrow?

I'm kidding, of course. We all know you're actually interested in promoting electoral fraud, and covering for that fraud with any available argument. Some studies have shown that minority voter participation actually goes up with ID laws- maybe they have more faith that their vote means something- but go ahead and keep making the case that it's absolutely vital that people too stupid to get an ID every 5 years should be encouraged to vote.

*I'd actually be fine funding programs to help people obtain proper ID in order to negate this line of thinking.

Comment Once Again: Cloud == Someone Else's Computer (Score 1) 465

Do you GOT THAT? FFS.

He probably bragged that he didn't need to do anything to protect it, it was "in the cloud, on Google's servers."I have heard that from to many idiots. This makes me wonder even more about how stupid some small startups are to host their companies email on GMail.

Slashdot Top Deals

"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos

Working...