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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Tolls? (Score 1) 825

Your comment is probably going to upset a few people, and will be modded down. "Pay no attention to the batteries!"

I know. These are the same folks who bitch up a storm about climate deniers not having logic, yet when it comes to energy no logic is to be applied.

There is absolutely no free energy.

Solar cells require manufacturing with all kinds of toxic mixes. So skip the sun being free energy.

Comment: Re:Tolls? (Score 1) 825

Why shouldn't hybrid and electric owners pay for the roads they use?

We're fine with that as soon as gas cars start paying for health care costs related to pollution as well as middle eastern wars, fracking induced earthquakes and all their other externalities.

Agreed. Don't forget about all those batteries that will need disposing of in the near future.

Comment: Re:What could possibly go wrong (Score 1) 228

by Capt James McCarthy (#49629149) Attached to: Self-Driving Big Rigs Become a Reality

6. ...and actually, these trucks will be manned; self-driving trucks without drivers are still well into the future. Likely, those won't even have cabs, and perhaps the trailers will also be redesigned to be harder to get into.

Agreed. It's not to fully eliminate drivers (a false sense of security), but to replace highly paid drivers with high school grads who can push a button with red for stop and green for go. Much in the same way there will be pilot-less commercial aircraft in 10 years to get us around. It's all about cost savings, centralized control, maximizing equipment investment (24 hour run times), and safety (fewer accidents = fewer law suits).

The days of having employees in larger numbers performing repetitive actions are soon to be gone.

Comment: Re:Maybe so but... (Score 1) 171

Good luck getting a penny in compensation out of the corporations responsible if this happens.

They are already smart enough to use shell corporations to do the drilling -- by the time water contamination or triggered earthquakes are discovered, the shell company is long done and a new one has taken its place.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Townships, Counties, States, Cities, all require permits and licensing of some kind before drilling begins and they are supposed to monitor said drilling. Hell, I can't cut down one sapling on my own property without permits from the county and state (proximity to water). The purpose of the permits is to limit and control land/water usage (regardless of property ownership rights). So if you want to blame anyone, start with the ones issuing the permits.

Comment: Re:AI isn't taking over (Score 1) 294

by Capt James McCarthy (#49329045) Attached to: Steve Wozniak Now Afraid of AI Too, Just Like Elon Musk

All the doom-n-gloomers miss what's really going on. AI isn't taking over - we're redesigning ourselves. Once viable non-biological emulation of our existing mind becomes possible, people will choose to migrate themselves onto that. Humans will upgrade. The end of biology will be a matter of consumer preference.

And how do you know you are not there right now?

Biological or not, the same problems would exist at that point. Survival would still be the driving force. Therefore there would be battles for energy and materials. No difference, except for perhaps timeline.

Comment: CC wind (Score 1) 262

by Capt James McCarthy (#49249663) Attached to: US Wind Power Is Expected To Double In the Next 5 Years

Has there been a wind sustainability study for future use with the climate changing? I mean it's been stated that there will be rain in places where there is no rain now. And rainy places will have drought in the future. So where are the wind models at for the future? I'm sure there are graphs and pretty pictures for us simpletons. And with these studies, by harvesting the wind (slowing it down, redirecting, etc) how does will that affect the ecosystem at large?

Now I'm being a bit facetious, but it should be a study for science. For example, there is x wind on the Earth, you slow down x to y, what are the results? If we are talking about invisible gasses in to the air, that could appear simplistic, but science has proven otherwise. So slowing down the Earth's wind patterns could have long term damaging effects on the Earth. Just as scooping up photons and keeping them from reaching the Earth's surface.

Comment: Re:i'th Post (Score 1) 366

It's politics who's trying to use science (or far more frequently trying to deny science), not the other way around.

Here's science : our climate is changing and that change is mainly (and probably exclusively) the result of human activities. What politicians or anyone with a political agenda do with that scientific knowledge has nothing to do with science.

Don't think so small. Many folks have agendas. Schools, politicians, scientists, news shows, etc. And said folks will collaborate to ensure continuation of their agenda. Here's a clue......watch where the money flows. (this qualifies for whatever side of the fence you are on).

See how you even try to lead the reader to give credibility to your view? First you say for fact that your statement is science, but give no source. You then lead the reader to your hypothesis that it's all humans that are the exclusive cause for the climate to change. This is subjective science. And that's the problem and gives the ability on both sides to massage the data to suit their needs.

Frankly when it comes to such divisive topics, I always think that the truth is more in the middle of the data floating around.

Comment: Re:About time. (Score 1) 309

by Capt James McCarthy (#49019535) Attached to: The IPCC's Shifting Position On Nuclear Energy

Where'd you get that idea? Most power is used in the middle of the day, when it's hot and everyone turns on their A/C. Solar produces the most power right in the middle of the day, when the sun is shining brightest. Solar is perfect for supplying peak loads in places where people use A/C.

1. Hydro
2. Nuclear
3. Geothermal.
1 and 3 are location limted.

2 is location limited too: you can't put nuclear close to a fault line, in a place where there's tornadoes or hurricanes, and you generally need to put it next to a river for cooling though you can also use giant cooling towers. And of course, you can't put it anywhere near a metro area.

A. You forgot about solar being affected by the highest total of those green house gasses (H2O).
B. Nuclear plants are designed to handle a F5 tornado

Comment: Re:Bull pucky (Score 1) 200

The wealthy pay more then their fair share. As does the middle class. Your mortgage interest that you write off on your taxes is considered a tax break. That interest money is gone out of your pocket one way or another. Either to the Govt (fed, state, local) or to an item that is then calculated as a tax break (charity, mortgage, business expense, etc).

This may be more of an over simplification of the process, but it is what it is. The reality is people are the problem. Stop complaining and trying to fight issues you can't change and don't affect you. Put your head down and go to work. And keep working. And keep working. Start at the bottom and make yourself better. Start a business, take a risk for once in your life. For as many wealthy folks that exist, many of them have gone bankrupt one or multiple times. Would you be willing to put that kind of risk in and still go to work? Or quit, start complaining, and looking for hand outs from someone else who worked and sacrificed for their gains?

Each new user of a new system uncovers a new class of bugs. -- Kernighan