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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:OpenOffice kind of sucked (Score 1) 145

Or Scribus. Or TeX. Or anything that makes PDFs.

Has Scribus stopped exploding? I found that if you tried to do anything more complex than a newsletter, it was crashes all the way down. Went back to using Adobe CS2 in a VM and I couldn't be happier compared to using Scribus and Inkscape, even if it is a bit poky.

Comment Re:OpenOffice kind of sucked (Score 1) 145

I gotta break this to you, because it's hilarious... so did Wordpenis, I mean wordpervert, I mean wordperfect.* It had no problem with this even back in the DOS days.

* This is what we called this stuff back then, adults and not-so-adults alike, and if you don't like it, you can suck me while I'm Micro$oft on some Compu$erve.

Comment Re:Open source SCO (Score 1) 153

Have you ever used SCO?
I have. It wasn't a bad system.

Bad is a strong word. What it was? Dumb. It had old versions of everything and a non-standard mail daemon that totally failed to make anything easier than just using sendmail... so why not just use sendmail? They also wanted $INFINITY dollars for a compiler, which ultimately let Linux kill them. You want people to pay hundreds for the OS and pay hundreds again for a single compiler license while Linux will give it all to you for free and do everything SCO Unix does, to boot? HAHAHAAHAHAHA.

SCO Xenix was by far the best OS that would run on a 286. But by the time the 486 was a thing, say, there was no longer a reason to run anything from SCO.

Comment Well, that's a terrible idea (Score 1) 49

Any time someone proposes an artificial tree as a solution, you know they are an asshole. Put a real tree there. It will use solar power to turn atmospheric CO2 into solid fuel. It really doesn't get any better than that. You would get more power from one tree-sized solar plant than from a whole forest of artificial trees that don't make air, don't clean air, and don't self-repair.

Comment Re:You have to start somewhere (Score 1) 45

Try it yourself if you dare: delete your account, wait a couple of weeks, and create a new one. Without doing anything, all of your old "friends" will pop up in the friend suggestions... because they already know who they are.

You know, while you're correct about what they're doing, this doesn't prove anything at all. All they have to do is keep a record of your email address as a past friend on everyone else's accounts. Then they could completely scrub your account, and this would still happen.

Comment Re:green? (Score 1) 241

Burning coal puts nuclear material into the atmosphere, including tons of fissile uranium per year.

One: no it does not, the uranium/thorium is in the ashes.

Yes, most of which goes right out the fucking stack. We can find out-of-compliance power plants in this country literally as fast as we can pay people to climb the stacks and probe them.

Two: no it does not in general. Only coal that is mined from mines that have that particular "contamination" obviously can set free uranium/thorium. Or were the trees from which the coal formed made from uranium? I don't think so.

Wrong again, dildo

The environmental cost of solar, especially non-PV systems or modern PV systems which use ever-vanishing quantities of rare earths or even organic materials, is minuscule compared to any fossil fuel.

One: wrong, because PV systems don't use rare earths.

Who told you that? They lied to you, and now you're being a stupid fuck.

Two: wrong still, as rare earths are not "vanishing". They are very abundant on the planet, they are misnamed because of some issues when they got "discovered".

What I meant was that the panels use less and less rare earths. Sorry I confused you. Apparently that's quite easy, so I'm not very sorry.

Three: wrong, organic materials are a non issue if you use them for PV or other electronics.

My post was pro-solar, stupid. Try reading it again.

Comment Re:So what should we do? (Score 1) 524

I don't find three pedals confusing either, and if I had a lift or even a slab I would probably drop the money to put a six speed into my Audi in lieu of the five speed slushbox when I liquidate my 300SD. I'm not doing that job in the dirt. The point remains, though; there was no good reason for them not to use pushbuttons.

Also, I'd still rather have a DCT than any of this stuff, and they don't work without computer control either

Comment Re:green? (Score 1) 241

But things like coal, oil, natural gas come from underground.

Most mining is now strip mining, so anything that has to be mined automatically loses. All three of these are also sequestered carbon; when we produce them, and then burn them, we cause ourselves problems related to CO2 release. Natural Gas production is now predicated upon fracking (we otherwise have already hit peak natgas, in terms of just getting it out of the ground as opposed to making it) which has its own severe problems, not least being based on injecting refinery wastes into the ground instead of disposing of them properly. Oil spills are an ongoing rather than regular occurrence; there is basically no time that there is not a serious oil spill going on somewhere in the world. Burning coal puts nuclear material into the atmosphere, including tons of fissile uranium per year.

The environmental cost of solar, especially non-PV systems or modern PV systems which use ever-vanishing quantities of rare earths or even organic materials, is minuscule compared to any fossil fuel.

Comment Re:6178 acres? (Score 1) 241

Wow, you need to disturb a lot of habitat to make that happen. Even in the desert.

The sand fleas will be crushed. No, literally, they will be crushed. Seriously, desert is notable for hosting minimal quantities of biomass. Sure, we could wipe out some inconsequential species. That would even be sad. But I think most of us would trade some obscure lizards and bugs for clean power... which has serious positive ramifications for protecting habitat for many more species.

Ideally we'd mandate if not PV installs then at least proper solar siting for all new construction worldwide, which would lend itself to more distributed solar projects. It's only maybe 15% of the roofs even in California for example which are suitable sites for solar panels because of all the various factors involved. Then there would be less demand for centralized solar. We need more distributed generation anyway.

Slashdot Top Deals

% "Every morning, I get up and look through the 'Forbes' list of the richest people in America. If I'm not there, I go to work" -- Robert Orben