Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:To America? Yes. To the GOP? No. (Score 1) 231

by squiggleslash (#48432843) Attached to: Does Being First Still Matter In America?

He's right and you're wrong. Those two issues are not the primary purposes of the Federal Government, and even if you had been technically right (you're not, ICC is of considerable more historic purpose), you would have been handwaving as claiming two issues are "primary" does not eliminate the other unsaid issues.

Comment: Re:To America? Yes. To the GOP? No. (Score 1) 231

by squiggleslash (#48432799) Attached to: Does Being First Still Matter In America?

I'm bemused by his answer to be honest. I was making a light hearted comment about someone's attempt to justify a party position ("Against big gubmint") by launching into a dubious official-justification "Trying to protect the constitution" rant.

So I drew a parallel with #ethics!!?!1!, and got a massive MRA rant in response, as if the intent was to make the thread symmetric. Apparent Reason 1 -> Dubious Official Position 1 -> Dubious Official Position 2 -> (Whitewashed) Apparent Reason 2.


BTW Shadow, FWIW, the tactics of your fellow MRAs/channer trolls/opportunists/dupes lead me to actually sit down and watch Anita Sarkeesian's video series the other week. Well, I had to. And yes, it will impact some of my work in future, she makes some excellent points. Me, myself, probably won't make a difference to you, but I know plenty of others who have done the same. And by coming out into the open, you've also made it easier for us to see you, for me to, for example, warn my daughter (when she's old enough, I'm not going to scare the shit out of her right now) about the extremists in your group who write articles like "How to get away with rape" and "How to break a woman".

So thank you - to you and the people you defend and associate with - for making it easier to arm my daughter, and for ensuring I, and legions of other men who seriously had thought sexism against women was nothing like as serious as it is, open our eyes and start fighting for equality.

Comment: Re:Migration away from Google? (Score 1) 382

Did you mean People type poorly and having spelling difficulties?

Results 1-10 of one gajillion:

(This is how Google used to work. Then they switched to automatically searching for the search query they think you want. Then they introduced the "any of these words" bullshit. And now they even change your query without telling you, leaving you literally with no relationship between what you've entered and the search results. Baffling.)

  • Slow Down Cowboy!

    Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

    It's been 3 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

    Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form.

    Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.

Comment: Re:Migration away from Google? (Score 1) 382

It's not the default because it doesn't work as well for most people.

It works very well for most people. Google is popular precisely because that mode works well for most people. And virtually everyone I'm talking to right now, geek and non-geek alike, agrees Google's new search mode is shit.

Comment: Re:Migration away from Google? (Score 2) 382

Pro-tip: you can get the old useful Google back (temporarily, there's no way to save it as a default) by hitting Search Tools -> Change "All Results" to "Verbatim"

Why they don't let you make that the fucking default - in fact, WHY IT ISN'T THE DEFAULT - is anyone's guess.

Comment: Re:Hmmm ... (Score 1) 163

by squiggleslash (#48420295) Attached to: Bicycle Bottle System Condenses Humidity From Air Into Drinkable Water

Why not? They have money, and the people who urgently need it (as opposed to it being a nice to have) don't - get the people who spend $5,000 on a carbon frame to pay for the R&D and initial start-up costs, and then supply the people who need it as soon as you can afford to do so.

It makes sense. It sounds wrong, but grants for this kind of work aren't just readily available, and ultimately this means that the people who need the work get it.

Comment: Re:Who pays for the infrastructure costs? (Score 1) 494

by Jeremi (#48417739) Attached to: Rooftop Solar Could Reach Price Parity In the US By 2016

Then you're living in a daydream. There simply isn't enough land for things like big solar farms to create that scale. Or wind farms. And, for ENVIRONMENTAL reasons, Hydro in at least the US is nearly as developed as it's going to get.

The point is, non-renewables run out. That's why they are called non-renewable. That means we will be transitioning away from them at some point, whether we like it or not.

Whether we end up transitioning to solar, wind, fission, fusion, or just to shivering-in-the-dark in an open question, but we will be transitioning to something, because once the oil and coal has been burned, it won't be coming back.

Comment: Re:Who pays for the infrastructure costs? (Score 1) 494

by Jeremi (#48417681) Attached to: Rooftop Solar Could Reach Price Parity In the US By 2016

What money is that? They already have sources of power as it is.

Residential power demand grows over time, as more houses are built, and/or people in existing houses start using more power.

When an area's peak power demand surpasses the capacity of the power company's existing power plants, the power company has to build more power plants; otherwise they risk brownouts or blackouts during peak usage periods (e.g. hot summer afternoons when everyone is running the A/C).

Building (and then maintaining) those additional power plants costs the power company money.

On the other hand, if the new houses (and/or some of the existing houses) add solar panels, that reduces the peak power demand, which means that additional peaking plants no longer have to be built, or maintained. That reduces the power company's future costs.

That's why it's not "charity" -- it's a win/win situation for both the consumer and the power company.

Comment: Re:They WILL FIght Back (Score 2) 494

by Jeremi (#48415523) Attached to: Rooftop Solar Could Reach Price Parity In the US By 2016

What about bird kills, though.

Bird kills do happen. The relevant questions to ask would be: (a) how much do wind-farm bird kills effect the bird population, relative to other sources of bird mortality, and (b) how many birds would die in the alternative scenario, where the wind farm is not built?

The answer to (a) is: not very much.

The answer to (b) would of course depend a whole lot on how society chose to produce its energy instead of by from wind. If society continued to burn fossil fuels instead, the likelihood is that climate change would wipe out a lot more birds than windmills ever could. OTOH, if society chose to build nuclear plants or solar plants instead, it's possible that those options would kill fewer birds. As with most hypotheticals, there isn't an easy answer; but pretty much every energy solution (other than energy conservation, which is very much underrated IMO) comes with some environmental cost, and of course bird conservation is only one of many considerations that have to be taken into account.

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.