Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Progress! (Score 1) 215

Err, there's a reason luxury vehicles are RWD.. FWD overburdens the front wheels with both steering and propulsion tasks, which can lead to lower peak traction in emergency situations, oversteer and torque steer. Weight distribution is also a factor that affects handling as well. FWD was far more useful in snow and ice prior to the advent of traction control, and having an unbalanced-heavy front helps in that situation at the expense of driving dynamics in normal conditions. FWD also provides more interior room typically, which makes it ideal for building lower-cost vehicles (less material for the same space).

IMO the ideal vehicle would be driven by an under-the-floor rear electric motor (or separate electric motors in the rear and front for AWD) along with under-the-floor high-capacity batteries, and a gasoline-powered SOFC, turboshaft or optimized 1l H6 motor (scaled-down Gold Wing, say) with direct injection, a turbo and variable cycle capabilities. Keep all the weight as low as possible, and with batteries you can spread them out to get perfect weight distribution.

Comment Glad to be free of oncall! (Score 1) 416

I was lucky enough to find a new gig that utilizes unix sysadmin analytical skills in a different context. While it's still ops (more like app admin), it involves profiting on low latencies and proximity to certain data exchanges. And they're (insanely) profitable, but when systems aren't working properly the impact on profitability is pretty instant, and outages can involve pretty large losses pretty quickly. So.. No on-call, very little outsourcing risk, respect for operations team, technical and logical rigor in decision making, and actual bonuses. Can't complain!

ps: no state income tax neither. And rent for a detached cozy house with a garage and yard for less than 25% of take-home.

Comment Re:Don't think so (Score 1) 314

There's no amount of conservation that will offset 3+ billion people living an adequately-powered lifestyle. And it is immoral to ask them to do so. LFTRs have the potential of generating all the power everyone on Earth will ever need for hundreds of years using stuff that's currently considered toxic waste, along with medically and industrially useful fission products, and generate far less waste of far shorter half-lives. Plus, LFTRs are inherently fail-safe and self-regulatory. The only haters are folks ignorant of the facts, religious Greentards, or self-interested rent-seekers in the legacy uranium fission industrial complex.

I won't mod you down, I'll just say you're delusional if you think any democracy or republic will accept a lower-quality lifestyle voluntarily.

Comment Re:What about Thorium (Score 1) 314

Too bad research, development, licensing and implementation aren't states-rights issues, at least for non-weaponizable processes. For example, rebuilding the ORNL reactor from 1960s plans in, say, Texas, should be doable as long as there's no crossing of state lines.. The beauty of statism in effect!!

Slashdot Top Deals

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Working...