Comment Re:All smart watches suck (Score 1) 242
Heck screw that, I wish I said neon pink.
It was originally a "brown" reference regarding Apples view of the
But a brown watch didn't seemed nasty enough. Now neon colors - They are still nasty!
Heck screw that, I wish I said neon pink.
It was originally a "brown" reference regarding Apples view of the
But a brown watch didn't seemed nasty enough. Now neon colors - They are still nasty!
.. available in the best of colors: mustard.
How someone made a chart comparing the amount of plastic in the ocean and the number of IE6 installs? Maybe there's some correlation there?
no no no, couldnt be, we have to go with the scary version, we cant go using reasonable options, how will anyone get funding for research???
Possible answers:
1) Aliens and their visits to planet earth is real and they are helping us clean up the oceans.
2) The air-planes are spraying some chemical compound or organism which break down plastic / hydrocarbons.
(3) All the plastic can be found in the Bermuda triangle.
So on so on.)
UV light doesn't crack the molecules?
If only we could get Jon Lech Johansen working on this!
Because we have more CO2 in the atmosphere when we used to have for a long time and the amounts increase fast.
Can't we just film it and call it Big Brother 2.0?
Personally I would had wanted to find out if my country really deserved to lit on fire or whatever he's just a chicken.
For the short time I was a regular at Head-Fi the Koss KSC-75 was popular among the cheapest headphones. It's not in-ear though but not actual cans either, whatever they sit around well enough for your activities I don't know but they may be worth taking a look at.
Would you like some "Hot Grits" scraped off of Natalie Portman's ass
Yes!
Regardless this shouldn't make it to Slashdot.
This is news for nerds - Not news for hipsters!
And those high taxes are there to subsidize the solar.
[citation needed]
You argue weird. They know it's not solution for 100% of their power demand so they don't do it.
That's not an argument against what they are doing though.. since.. like you know.. they aren't going for it 100%.
This includes wind, the slashdot article is only talking solar.
Hence all renewable energy combined
That is was briefly have already been covered.
It has been pointed out the price of getting the solar panels had dropped (was it 40% in how many years?) and part of that may be to higher demand so at least there's that.
Also I've read that the nuclear power energy from a new nuclear plant in UK ended up being very costly and Finlands new nuclear power plant ended up costing much more than what was planned too. So there's that.
Plus I saw some article about how much Uranium we had
Personally I think one should build thorium-salt reactors if possible and not regular old uranium plants and obviously only build them if they are cheaper (and possibly accept them anyway if they can provide power when wind and solar doesn't.)
Here in Sweden almost 50% is hydro power so I guess we can buffer fairly well with that.
"Now" is misleading when the article is 2 years old?
lol
Oh well, more recently they hit 74% with all renewable energy combined:
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
Maybe the 50% is correct for this year or other pages have just picked up the hype and not checked the sources or noticed the dates either.
http://www.thelocal.de/2014061...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/qu...
Did I Fucking Love Science got it wrong?
http://www.iflscience.com/tech...
More 2012:
http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...
I can't see a year here:
http://theweek.com/speedreads/...
Anyway, even if it has happened recently too it's less impressive when it has already been done more than 2 years ago..
Which is cheaper?
For looks I'd prefer the De Loreans.
fortune: No such file or directory