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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment And what if they find there is no problem? (Score 4, Insightful) 284

The central problem with projects like this is the result is already determined. They've already decided that movies are horribly sexist before the first line of code was written. Think about it. What if, after detailed analysis, it was determined that there is no problem, that women and men are treated roughly equal? What happens then? It can't happen, it wouldn't be acceptable. The funding would dry up, and they would be shutdown. It would be like the NRA releasing a study saying guns are bad. And good luck getting funding in the future, if you can't produce results that affirm what we "know to be true" then clearly you are a terrible researcher.

Comment Re:Peter Thiel didn't bankrupt Gawker (Score 4, Informative) 242

Bankruptcy is an absurd punishment over a celebrity sex tape. But that isn't what bankrupted them.

Gawker got taken to court to have the film taken down, and lost. But decided to keep spreading the film anyway, and wrote an article bragging that they were going to ignore the ruling. Giving a big middle finger to the judicial system. That is what did them in. The court would have let them off much easier if they hadn't been complete assholes. It didn't help that AJ Daulerio "joked" that he would have given the green light to publish child porn.

Finally the punishment wasn't to bankrupt them. Hogan only sought $100 million in damages, it was the court that felt he was owed more.

Comment Sham (Score 1) 1052

The whole thing is a sham. The people behind this want UBI so they are rigging up a system to "prove" that it work.

This "experiment" is useless because it's only testing the easy part of the UBI, handing out money, while completely ignoring the hard part: collecting. What will happen to people if we give them free money? Their lives will improve obviously! This isn't in question. In fact it isn't even new. If they really wanted to know the answer to that question they could just research people who have won cash for life lotto prizes, those have been around for a long time and would be a much more cost effective way to study giving out free money.

If they want to test UBI they need to test the part that will actually be difficult: paying for it. Anyone who has seriously looked into UBI recognises that it's an insanely expensive proposal. The much bandied about "efficiencies" and replacing existing services won't even come close. To make UBI work there would have to be a massive tax increase, and that is the part that is the hard sell. Jacking up everyone's taxes so that people can choose to sit at home and do nothing all day.

This "experiment" has nothing to do with testing UBI. It's about putting the name UBI on an experiment that can't possibly fail so they can hold it up as proof that UBI works.

Comment "Subsidies" (Score 1) 530

The problem these claims about "subsidies" is that they are not. An untaxed negative externality is not a subsidy, no matter how much the green lobby tries to spin it as such. This bogus calculation is never applied in other areas, no one counts the cost of car accidents as subsidies, or the health impact of a big mac. People have come to associate subsidies with something bad, and now people like Musk are trying to expand the definition to suit their own ends. It's bullshit and people need to start calling them on it.

Comment Getting Desperate (Score 4, Insightful) 175

These F-35 FUD writers are getting desperate.

They call it the "brains" of the plane. It isn't. The brains are the sensor fusion computers. This is the Autonomic Logistics Information System. Key word: Logistics. It's a maintenance system. They say the whole program is a failure because the fancy maintenance system could ground the fleet. Except most of the USAF flies just fine without this type of system. Oh, and the problem isn't that it doesn't work, it is working. It's that it hasn't been thoroughly tested. Why? Because it's still in testing. Then they complain that there is no backup system if it doesn't work.

So they cry that the program is too expensive. Then cry some more because there is no redundant replacement for a non-critical system. Of course if there were a backup system they would be complaining that the program spent millions on duplicated efforts. It's just stupid.

Comment Re:Suppose we could... (Score 1) 174

That would actually be very useful. If you know of an earthquake a few days out you can:

1) Have emergency services ready for an influx of casualties.
2) Have the national guard on standby just in case.
3) Shutdown all the nuclear reactors.
4) Make sure any dams are not operating near capacity.
5) Prevent workers from working on high rise construction projects.
6) Prevent workers from working with hazards materials for that day.
7) Shutdown oil refineries and other major fire hazards.
8) Shutdown any amusement parks.
9) Stop all the trains.
10) Have airlines ready to divert to other airports.
11) Limit the number of vehicles that can be on major bridges.
12) Issue public alerts reminding people what to do in case of an earth quake.

Comment Re:Does it really matter? (Score 1) 130

It matters a lot depending on the type of embedded chip you are using. Unlike microprocessors, microcontrollers include the RAM on chip in the form of SRAM. This is to save money, power, or both. The PIC32MX795 microcontroller that I'm working on right now only has 512k of SRAM and it is the largest offering from PIC. On the small end PIC10s can have as little as 16 bytes! With tons of chips in-between. On that RAM you might need your OS, TCP/IP stack, USB Host stack, FAT filesystem stack, graphics stack, a bootloader, plus drivers for whatever you are connected to, and then your code. All told it can add up to a lot. It sounds crazy to have such small amounts, but with nanowatts of power consumption and prices a low as 30 cents these chips find uses everywhere.

Comment Re:For containers (Score 1) 191

Indeed. I do this on my company's internal VM server with LXC+BTRFS and it is amazing. Once we get one system setup we can snapshot it and make many copies. Even better is for working with old versions. Since we keep a copy of each old image, if something comes up its easy to spin up a clone of an old version and reproduce the customers issue.

Comment Electrics Cargo Ships (Score 1) 346

Why don't we make electric cargo ships first?

Cargo ships release a huge amount of CO2, the only reason we don't complain is because they are efficient per ton moved. But switching them over would greatly reduce CO2 consumption. I think it would make sense to do them first since the ship designs are much much less sensitive to mass and volume relative to airplanes. Further, we have had ship based electric propulsion in the form of submarines for a very long time. Once the prise of batteries comes down I'd like to see high voltage lines to the major ports on hand to re-charge ships while the are being unloaded. Since they don't need to be charge 24/7 they would make a great place to dump excess capacity when solar/wind are producing at their maximum.

Comment Re:Also, see the A-10 (Score 2) 290

I think most pilots would prefer to not be shot at all.

The problem with the A-10 is it's whole philosophy is low and slow. You can't build a flying tank. Sure can put some armour on aircraft, but it's a losing proposition. Armour is heavy, and heavy thing don't fly too well. It's also hard to upgrade the armour of a plane. Case in point is the A-10 which was designed to withstand the Soviets 23mm AA, to which the Soviets responded by upgrading their AA to 30mm.

This is why every other plane flies high and fast. It's why everyone is investing in stealthier planes.

Comment Re:Also, see the A-10 (Score 2, Insightful) 290

Except the A-10 isn't successful at it's job, never has been.

The A-10 was designed to strafe tanks during the Cold War, but never got used for that mission. They tried to use it to attack Republican Guard tanks during First Iraq War. But the A-10 proved too vulnerable to anti-air defences and the job was given to F-16s using laser guided bombs. The majority of ground attack missions in the Second Iraq War was conducted by F-16s and F-18s. The same is true for Afghanistan. The only reason the A-10 is still around is because congress won't let the USAF get rid of it. It's never been good at its job.

Slashdot Top Deals

System going down at 5 this afternoon to install scheduler bug.