Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Silicon Valley is officially old (Score 0) 533

Since that time, there has been a large segment of the population who, while still gaining the benefits, and using the services of this country, have actively refused to live up to the basic responsibility of living in this country. They have acted like leeches, sucking the life out of this country, using up it's resources, and driving the future generations into massive debt. They can't be bothered to pay for the government they use, because they're greedy, self centered, egotistical, myopic assholes, who don't give a damn about this country... just about themselves. They are nothing more than thieves, stealing from the future to ad their pockets in the present day.

How much should the top 10% of income earners pay? Is 50% of their salary enough? Currently the top 10% pay 70% of all federal income taxes yet only account for 40% of that income while the bottom 48% pay no federal income taxes.

In the 1940's, during the war, millions of men were called up to fight, with hundreds of thousands paying the ultimate cost for this country. The top marginal tax rate was over 90%. Now, we are paying close to the lowest rates in 60 years, and there's no requirement to submit to a draft for military service... yet we still have a segment of the population who bitch and whine like little toddlers with shit in the diapers that taxes are too high. These people are THE problem in this country. They undermine everything that this country has ever done, and spit on the graves of those who gave their lives making this country a better place... all because they're greedy little bitches.

No one likes to pay taxes, but taxes are the cost of living in society. As for the ones stealing.... those are the worthless little bitches who don't support this country, even after using everything this country offers every day.

In the 1940's only 30% of the population paid no federal income taxes while in 2013 48% paid no federal income tax that is the highest rate since the 16th amendment was passed. How many people should get a free ride on the backs of all hard working Americans? Who is stealing? It certainly is not the people paying the abundance of taxes.

Comment Re:Time to abolish patents (Score 1) 73

Being first to market is rarely the determining factor of success of a product, if someone can offer the exact same product cheaper or can out market the inventor it will matter little who was first. Remember how late iPods were to the market yet they dominated.

Some people will invent regardless if a system is in place but there will be fewer people bringing those inventions to market. I doubt you have ever been through the prototype and testing phase of a product, it can be very expensive as multiple iterations are needed to get the product ready to go to market, then you have tooling costs where you can go through multiple iterations too. These are iterations that your competitors won't have to go through and can offer the same product for a significantly lower cost. They can charge the same amount and spend the extra cash on marketing or keep it as profits, a luxury the inventor doesn't have.

A patent system is needed to protect inventors, they deserve a chance to make their money back. Unfortunately many companies take full advantage of these protections and use them as market barriers. The best example I know of is due to the greenhouse gass ban on CFC's inhalers, the new propellent used was HFAs and a patent wall was put around them, my son's inhaler went from $15 a month to $150 a month. I'm all for shorting the term to 3-5 years but inventors need to be protected.

Comment Re:Time to abolish patents (Score 1) 73

The problem with your "for the greater good" thinking is simple there is a financial disincentive to develop an invention. It will take a year tops before your competitors can start selling your invention, you have about one to two years to recoup your costs. Many ideas will go uninvented because the inventor has no reward incentive to risk their capital in bringing their idea to market.

Comment Re:Exactly. (Score 1) 56

If it could be done cheaply it would, it's not just the motors that are introducing error it's the backlash in the feed screws/gearing/belt, backlash in the motor coupling, flex or misalignment of the linear rails, ... Eliminating backlash requires parts with very tight tolerances those parts are not cheap no matter how many are made, if they were cheap CNC machines would be cheap. If you want precision you need linear rails with tight fitting ball screws for control. A 3 axis setup like that is going to cost $1000 just for the table not the printer or controllers.

Comment Re:Move along nothing to see here. (Score 1) 56

3d printing accuracy needs to be defined much the same way a cnc is. Expecting to get good parts on a cheap printer with an accuracy of 1/4" is setting yourself up for failure. It's not just that the cheap models are inaccurate but that their inaccuracy is not defined leading people to think their $250 printer has 1/64" precision. Simply defining the precision of the printers will make a huge difference, like you said 200 points per rotation is not an issue, it's the backlash in the gears moving the head, the rigidity of the rails the head travels on, or the slippage of the belt drive.

Comment Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (Score 1) 323

Water does not have a linear density ratio with respect to temperature so your number are suspect. At 4c, 370bar and 35 psu, the average temperature, pressure, and salinity of the ocean the density is 1029.502 kg/m^3 at 8c the density is 1028.957 about a 0.057% increase in volume which is what is needed for the 7 foot rise. I think in my original calcs I forgot to convert my delta F to delta K so I was off by a factor of two, that's still 25% of the sun's energy that hits earth. If you say that only 25% of that is due to expansion that's an increase of 1/8 of the suns energy that hits earth. That's still way too high to be plausible.

Comment Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (Score 2) 323

According to a US geological survey there are 332,519,000 cubic miles of water in the oceans and they have a surface area of 129,444,000 square miles a rise of 7 feet is 171,611 cubic miles of water or a 0.05% increase. The average temperature of the ocean is 39F to get that increase in volume the average temperature would need to be 46F. That's 4.06e25 Joules to achieve that over 86 years or 4.83e23 J per year which is half the total energy of the sun that strikes the earth each year. I just have a hard time believing that greenhouse gases trap 50% more of the sun's energy and put it directly into the ocean.

Comment Re:Fuck seaworld (Score 1) 194

Not just a filtration system but frequent water changes as well. Fish waste and uneaten food become ammonia the ammonia is turned into nitrites by bacteria then the nitrites are turned into nitrates by another bacteria, these nitrates are not as toxic as ammonia or nitrites but a at 40ppm fish are defiantly stressed.

Comment Re:Fuck seaworld (Score 3, Informative) 194

I have guppy fish in a 30 gallon tank. They almost never live past 2 years in captivity. In nature however, guppies live 5 years or more.

I would say that speaks more to your skill about taking care of fish then anything else. If I omit fry my fish live usually past the upper end of the age limit.

The sea world tank in San Diego is 7 million gallons and has 10 wales, that's approximately 100,000 ft^3 per whale. Further the filtration on the tank runs 30,000 gallons per minute it takes approximately 3 hours to filter 7 million gallons. Water cleanliness is not the issue, the whales and dolphins are stressed from from loud noises of children and not being able to travel, they are fed obscene amounts of antacids to try to minimize the stomach ulcers.

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Working...