Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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

Comment BleachBit (Score 1) 569

Gowdy's comments just cater to IT novices who might think that there must be a bad cheap way and a good expensive way to wipe bits from a hard drive, when in fact there's just one way, and it's not particularly clever or complicated. People have written free programs to do it, so everybody uses them. It's just like thinking that anybody who uses a Teraflop/s machine must be using it to design nuclear bombs, until you realise that TFLOPs machines cost 100 bucks these days, so everybody uses them for everything, including writing birthday emails to grandma.

Comment Trapped? (Score 3, Insightful) 306

He doesn't "sit trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy" any more than a prissy teenage girl who is mad at her parents and doesn't wanna come down for dinner sits trapped in her room. He can just walk out of there whenever he pleases. The only risk he'd face would be major embarrassment after NOT being deported to the US.

Comment Re:Q and A Time: What can Powershell do... (Score 2) 400

On linux, piping commands in bash are extremely limited. mostly because the command you pipe from cannot customize what data it is going to output to the command you pipe to.

Why exactly should it be able to customize output based on the pipe target? It sounds like something that makes commands work only with some specific other commands, seriously limiting reusability.

Yeah, almost everything that's genuinely useful limits reusability somewhat. By your logic, OOP "limits reusability" compared to raw assembly language, which allows you to do more things, including implementing your own OOP language in it. In reality, OOP tries to hit a sweet spot by constraining reusability somewhat and gaining functionality and ease of reusability for it. I've never used PS, but I understand that using object streams instead of text line streams will provide advantages. If the processes on both ends of the pipe declare what kind of objects the support, the shell can provide enhanced functionality if the processes support it, and fall back to text or to a generic meta object protocol otherwise.

Have you ever tried to grep from an mbox file all mails sent last month by a specific sender? That's gonna be next to impossible because grep doesn't know anything about mails, and because grep is line-oriented, but an mbox file doesn't contain one mail per line. OTOH if you can turn the mbox file into a stream of "Mail" objects, which it really is, the job is probably trivial even with any kind of "object grep" that just works via reflection and doesn't know anything about Mail objects specifically.

Comment Re:From TFA (Score 1) 323

Just remember that even clean energy ends up as waste heat that must be radiated out into space. Any excess and independent of AGW, the earth starts to heat.

If energy per person continues to grow at the same rate it has since the 1600s, in less than 500 years the earth is over 212 degrees. Energy per person is another limit to growth. And the more people we have, the lower that limit. If we have 20 billion instead of 5 billion, the ultimate cap on energy per person is going to be 1/4th as much.

Yeah, we're a few orders of magnitude away from that. It's T~P^(1/4), T=300K, and the solar power input is currently about 10,000 times the entire human energy production. So a tenfold increase of our power production would lead to about 0.06 Kelvins of temperature rise from direct energy to heat conversion. Or to put it another way, the current AGW temperature increase (~1K) corresponds to the heat equivalent of about 140 times our current energy production. So yes, we won't be able to achieve the same relative growth in energy production over the coming 500 years as we did in the past 500 years, at least as long as we stay on this planet and don't venture into outer space. But that's not really all that relevant for solving the energy and resource consumption problems at hand.

Comment Re:From TFA (Score 1) 323

Recycling is well under 100% efficient. It's a good thing but we lose a significant amount of usable material each pass thru the recycling part of the system.

The book "Limits to Growth" includes recycling in it's models.

Conservation and less consumption per person are our best bet but it really only changes to day we hit the limits not the fact that we will hit the limits. We can't sustain our current population level much less the potential for 12 billion by 2100 now projected by the UN.

We now use more of many nonrenewable resources each year than we did during all of last century.

Well, it largely depends (ultimately) on the energy you put into the recycling process. Energy is the only true "nonrenewable resource", due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But there's enough of it. What we really have to do is develop technologies and policies to produce large amounts of clean energy. If we don't do that, then even half the current global population number will be unsustainable in the long term, especially if more countries strive to attain western standards of living. If we do do it, then 12 billion or even 20 billion people can be managed. Since forbidding people to consume and prosper didn't even work under communism, it certainly won't in liberal democracies, so our options are quite clear AFAICS.

Comment Re:From TFA (Score 1) 323

How about almost every climatology study done in the last forty years?

I tell you what. If you don't think AGW is real, why don't you explain where all the energy being absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere is going. Are you advocating the "magic heat sink back into space" theory?

I think AGW is real, but I fail to see how you get from that to August 8 as a single date of an "overshoot day". Does this imply that, since on August 8 we're about 60% through the year, we'd have to reduce our CO2 output by 40% to completely stop the increase of atmospheric CO2 levels? That doesn't make any sense at all, given that the worldwide CO2 emissions were 40% lower than today roughly 30 years ago, but by that time the CO2 levels had been increasing for more than a century already. So that doesn't make sense at all unless you postulate that the natural CO2 sinks work at a much higher pace at today's CO2 levels compared to those in 1986.

So what does August 8 represent? Are they computing one overshoot day per type of resource (Hydrocarbons, aluminium, copper, ...) and take the average? Or the minimum? And what's a "copper overshoot day" anyways, given that we don't "use up" metals the way we do oil or gas when we burn it. If you count metal as "used up" if it's not recycled but replaced with new raw materials, then the corresponding "overshoot day" would be January 1st because the Earth's crust contains a fixed amount of extractable ores.

Comment Re:Muslim Scientist (Score 3, Informative) 41

Well, he was one of three muslim science nobel prize winners in history (the other two being Abdus Salam and Aziz Sancar). And there are 1.5 billion muslims. By contrast, jewish scientists have won over 100 nobel prizes, and there are only 15 million jews. I guess this means that a muslim is about 5,000 times less likely to become a renowned scientist than a jew is. So while muslim scientists aren't oxymorons, they're an exceedingly rare occurrence.

Comment Re:Dealing with steadily rising wages? (Score 2) 166

> The Group’s gross profit increased 20% to € 2.304 billion (2014: € 1.918 billion) in the third quarter.

http://www.adidas-group.com/en...

I would love to know why Adidas can't afford to pay decent wages?

Maybe they're using more robots precisely because they want to pay their (remaining) human employees decent wages. :D

Comment Re:Bomb or missile (Score 1) 410

It seems like a really weird bomb - if we assume middle eastern terrorists. They would be in Paris with a bomb, but choose to go through all the airport security and the risks associated with it just to blow up a plane filled with mostly Egyptians in Egyptian airspace?

Yeah, why not? First, bringing down an airliner means a lot more publicity than just exploding a bomb in a restaurant somewhere. Second, a bomb that kills at most one or two people in a restaurant kills 100+ people when exploded in an airplane because most or all victims won't die from the blast but from, you know, flying in an airplane that's crashing.

Yeah but if you're going to blow up a plane wouldn't you want to do it over land, preferably over a city or something (like the one it just left) where lots of people are likely to see, rather than over some bit of ocean miles and miles away from anything.

Yeah, if you have any control over where exactly the bomb goes off. You seem to be assuming that the terrorist was onboard the plane, on a suicide mission. Which seems pretty unlikely to me.

Comment Re:Bomb or missile (Score 1) 410

It seems like a really weird bomb - if we assume middle eastern terrorists. They would be in Paris with a bomb, but choose to go through all the airport security and the risks associated with it just to blow up a plane filled with mostly Egyptians in Egyptian airspace?

Yeah, why not? First, bringing down an airliner means a lot more publicity than just exploding a bomb in a restaurant somewhere. Second, a bomb that kills at most one or two people in a restaurant kills 100+ people when exploded in an airplane because most or all victims won't die from the blast but from, you know, flying in an airplane that's crashing.

Slashdot Top Deals

In every hierarchy the cream rises until it sours. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter

Working...