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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Erm, not so much. (Score 2) 142

So flat coal consumption is misleading - this would imply coal is growing as a percentage of energy mix given the economic situation.

Actually, I think it is more complicated than that. For instance, a small decrease in electricity demand would not prompt Germany to start dismantling plants. Some plants can easily be used less, while other may not. Older coal plants designed only for base load face significant challenges when trying to operate to accommodate turbulent demand. Accordingly, a downturn in demand could result in a higher mix of coal vs gas, but only because the gas generators are more flexible than the coal plants.

Another point worth mentioning is that improved efficiency is also the cause of decreasing demand. Unfortunately I am not able to find an actual percentage breakout, but I would guess that it is not insignificant due to recent trends like LED lighting. Accordingly, I think it would be unfair to exclude the efficiency improvement portion from the mix and then say that Germany was getting less green because of an increased coal mix. We should be comparing the work accomplished by electricity, not just raw electricity production.

Comment Re:Say it ain't so. . . (Score 1) 63

"Schmoozing is part of sales"
Exactly and when the regulated schmoozes the regulator, what else could the regulated be trying to sell other than various flavors of corruption? That is why, in this case, the schmoozing can only come at the detriment of society as a whole, and it is a significant example of how rampant regulatory capture is in our society.

"I've been invited to boxes by vendors before"
If I were a stock holder of your company then I would take issue with that because part of the price your company is being charged by that vendor covers such activities (which either reduces dividends or intrinsic value of the company). It is simply a form of wealth transfer to the corrupt and a textbook example of the principle-agent dilemma (unless you are both in this example).

Comment Re:Say it ain't so. . . (Score 3, Interesting) 63

I see, so because the poster (who could be supporting the agenda of either side) exaggerated, Comcast's invitation is now completely kosher (how many regulator have you schmoozed lately, regardless of the venue?), and the U.S. no longer has a regulatory capture problem that needs to be addressed. . .

You know, for awhile I thought it was the overwhelming power of the wealthy that prevented change, but now I get the sense that it is the underwhelming intellectual capability of people like yourself that are dragging us down. Happy 4th. . .

Comment Re:Worst Case Scenario (Score 1) 436

Can you repost your scenario . . .

Sorry, I have never seen a "repost" feature on Slashdot (you appear to have been here longer than me, so perhaps you can clue me in on that feature).

Furthermore, NYC is the most populated, densely packed city in the U.S. If you are going to maximize human suffering from a nuclear blast (or MOAB, per other posters), that is the primary target in the U.S. Since the point of my post was that having your own 777 could allow you to pick the optimal position to maximize damage, I believe my choice of NYC was reasonable.

We need to divert the terrorists to somewhere else

I doubt Slashdot posts will be able to divert terrorists . . .

Comment Worst Case Scenario (Score 4, Insightful) 436

How hard would it be to make this plane "reappear" as another plane with a flight destination of New York City? It would seem like a legit flight (might have to make another plane disappear, but you have already seemed to master that trick once).

Of course, by then you have had time to retrofit the plane with your crude nuke you have put together (hell, you have the entire space of the 777 to fit the thing, so it could more primitive than the trinity test. . . ). You could then deviate the flight only at the very last minute to the best possible position to detonate for maximized damage (fighter jets would have no time to respond).

Probably being paranoid here, but why else would you need a 777 that could only be used for a short time before being discovered?

Comment Re:Gun + BC client = $1,000,000,000 (Score 3, Insightful) 390

Two things:
-Crypto-currencies can still be awesome without "long term inherent stability" (are you sure you are a "geek?")
-You do realize that math covers everything in our universe and BEYOND. Accordingly, I would be careful about what constraints you put on it. . . as it is statistically more likely that your mind is just creating artificial constraints.

Irregardless, thanks for the links.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Working...