Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Anti drone nonsense (Score 1) 71 71

A burglar wouldn't draw attention to themselves like that, so that's just some rozzer trying to dream up anti-drone propaganda.

That's strange because the law enforcement office is very in favour of using drones (for surveillance). It would be very strange indeed if they falsely try to put the image in the general public that drones could possibly not be trusted. For me, this would be a perfect reason to just shoot every drone out of the sky because it's coming right at^H^H^H^H^H possibly a criminal drone.

Comment Re:So (Score 1) 193 193

And then you quote a list of projects that are mostly completed, the "Planned cities and urban renewal projects" as notable distinction of mostly planned projects and the "Water-related projects" as being very, very short indeed.
What of a very needed project to give California drinking water?

Comment Re:It's a model (Score 1) 230 230

While I agree to this, you could scale it up to full size. Then still, the question on "it could function as a replacement for the real thing" is not so much a "are you sure?", but "for how long?"
In other words: how much torque can this thing handle before it breaks. I'm sure it's not much and therefor it still remains a nice piece of machinery but unfit for a replacement.

Comment Re:Damn... A win for the creationists (Score 1) 94 94

I know you are joking, but in a way it is a win for creationists. After 2.8 million years, we have under 8 billion people on earth. Statistical models just don't support it. You have creationists that believe there could have been more people on earth prior to the flood than there are now, in just 1656 years when the lifespan was ~900 years per person. My great great grandparents had 11 children that lived to adulthood, and my grandparents had 6...try running those numbers. At just 4 surviving children per parents, using 33 years per "generation", you easily hit 8 billion in 1000 years.

You mean that the best possible model is statistically significant? Wouldn't you think there is a higher possibility that the population growth is not exponentially at all times? Surely, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Do read

Comment Re:Realistic (Score 2) 374 374

I think solar is great - I have some panels on my camper, which is very conducive to solar type use because it's already designed to function off-grid. But let's be realistic. Let's say every home in America stuck a couple thousand watts of solar power on their roof, and wanted to sell the power into the grid (as opposed of having to store it on-site). How is that supposed to work? If no power generation is required by the power company when the sun is shining, but the full normal generation is required the instant clouds sweep over a community or at night, etc, then how is that supposed to work? None of the power generation plants can function in that "instant on / instant off" type of a mode. Particularly not nuclear. The point is, once the adoption reaches some (rather smallish) percentage, there will be some major problems and costs that will have to be addressed.

Before that occurs (in the US), a lot of years will have passed. Germany has had a day with 75% renewable energy production and 50% solar production and will undoubtedly get similar occurences this year too. They also still have nuclear power plants and it all works. Sure, nuclear power plants are notoriously bad to change in output on short term and will therefore gradually fade from view, which is not a bad thing alltogether (even though I am not opposed to nuclear). New technologies will come to mitigate problems of temporary overproduction, like Elon Musk's battery pack for homes.

It is all not a problem that can be solved. The only problem is big powerful companies fearing for their livelyhood and having the money and influence to prevent these changes from happening.

Comment Re:Now needs a better phone app (Score 2) 77 77

It does not require an internet connection but it has a stupid arbitrary distinction between "city" and "town" where when you search for a place it will first only search in its list of cities and you have to manually select to search further, and the search then becomes painfully slow. As if it's geared towards city users only.
It is a good navigation app, but it suffers from some bad mistakes and unwillingness to correct them. But ok, it's a one-man-job, or so I believe, so it is commendable it is at this level at all.

Comment Re:Aerial or underground ? (Score 1) 516 516

And what if the place you live in has a lot of trees?

I live in a country where there are virtally no aerial powerlines 10 kV (I would hazard a quess that there are less then 10 km of aerial lines in the whole country). Power outages are very rare. If it happens to you once a year than it is a lot.

Comment Re:I use yahoo mail (Score 1) 400 400

So having all choices be "wrong" justifies calling people out for trying at all?

Yes, I do not believe that all choices are wrong. I think my provider does not do all of that. And specifically going to Yahoo because you dislike Google's privacy policy is plain wrong because Yahoo violates your privacy exactly as Google does. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

"Pok pok pok, P'kok!" -- Superchicken