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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Loss of Couch CoOp (Score 1) 38

The last POS I bought was Destiny. CoD, Resistance 3, Crisis, MoH, etc are ok games. But I just can't get the feeling out of my head that I had more fun 8 years ago. The last fun games I played were Lost Planet 2, Army of Two, and Gears of War.

I just replayed LP2 on PC because it was recently on sale, holy crap it's so much nicer playing with a mouse and keyboard, shock amazement. As it turns out, LP3 is pretty good too. Not as good as you would have expected a sequel to LP2 to be, but the production value is very very high.

Comment Re:Are there better uses for this technology? (Score 1) 105

As I recall compressing and storing hydrogen is a very expensive process. One problem is that hydrogen likes to destroy most metals. Any piping, compressor, or container must be made of expensive metals or lined with glass or something.

While this is true, the really expensive part is the high-pressure tank. It has to be fairly extreme to actually hold the hydrogen, let alone the issue of sealing it against the gas which is basically a solved problem. We already are using expensive alloys for common engines now that gasoline direct injection has become common. The big difference in practice now is that a gas tank is stamped out of sheet metal and costs basically nothing, and a hydrogen tank is made out of carbon fiber and titanium or aluminum and costs a bundle.

I might be mistaken but hydrocarbon liquids can store hydrogen in a much smaller space than any compressed gas.

It's true. The problem is, burning them produces undesirable emissions. When you burn hydrogen gas you get water vapor and heat out the other end; the emissions truly are cleaner than the intake air. When you burn gasoline you get soot and carbon monoxide. You can minimize the CO, you can reduce the soot, but you can't make them go away. When you burn diesel you get less of everything but NOx, but then you get NOx. So what do you burn? Probably the "best" thing would be methane. It has similar energy density problems to hydrogen, but it has dramatically lower pressure requirements and it doesn't require exotic alloys. Any gasoline engine can be converted to run on it fairly cheaply, at least in theory. (Doing it very cheaply requires automaker cooperation and a vehicle with a reprogrammable PCM, but you can do it "from scratch" without much cash outlay to carbureted vehicles as well — and basically turn them fuel-injected in the process, or you can just use a vacuum-controlled gas regulator which behaves like a carb. Both approaches are commonly used in propane conversions. Methane vs. propane means a very slightly different working pressure, and different injector timing or regulator adjustment.

Comment Re:I for one welcome the return of the Star Chambe (Score 1) 63

How you can read "authorities historically abuse powers and we are observing it happen once again right now" and interpret it as "authorities are entirely untrustworthy and the people should just police themselves in anarchy" is absolutely beyond my comprehension. Your level of interpretation is legitimately baffling, so I will attempt to explain...

No implication was made that authority and law should be ignored. Law enforcement is essential for society to operate as it does. A better analogy, based on your metaphor, would be that in these circumstances the authorities judge every ticket / warrant ever issued to be valid simply because it has been issued in the first place. That is just wrong. If you can't see why then consider this: when the people are subject to one set of laws and the authorities are subject to a different, in this case far less strict set of laws, then you are living in a dictatorship. You are living in a system where the powers that be get to behave however they choose and they write laws to validate their actions. They then will not afford you the same liberties and write different laws that stop you behaving in ways that they behave themselves. It is basically the definition of tyranny.

The only authority that is worth respect is the authority that is granted power willingly by the people it represents and allows itself to be fully responsible to the people for its actions. Any other authority is little more than acquisition of power over people through the threat of menaces, violence, imprisonment or worse for the purpose of maintaining the ruling elite class at the expense of the freedom of those being ruled. Any system of governance that can be described in that fashion earns my immediate contempt. Unsurprisingly I'm not alone in that sentiment.

Thank you.

Yours is one of very few rational posts I see on /. or heck, just about anyplace anymore on the interwebs.

Governments share much in common with computer networks and their design.

Governments are networks of power to compel with a monopoly on the legitimate use of deadly force.

Like a computer network design composed of many stand-alone machines each with it's own attack-detection & mitigation mechanisms is harder to compromise than a single central server and 'dumb clients', it follows that government power must be mostly local in nature with as little dependence on a central authority as possible.

I heartily accept the motto - "That government is best which governs least;" and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe, - "That government is best which governs not at all;" and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.
- Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience


Comment Re:Why not overseas .... (Score 1) 151

I agree with a lot of your points, but I've encountered many managers that you wouldn't consider "good managers".

And WRT your final paragraph...automation is going to make a job based economy a guarantee that nearly everyone is at the very bottom rung. We are already at the point where the US and India are BOTH losing jobs to increased automation, and we are still in the early days. Projections call for over half of the existing jobs to disappear within around a decade. And I don't think anyone can predict which ones will be safe. (Except upper management, and that's because they are the ones making the decisions.) As this continues it will become more and more evident that it's foolish to take on a large debt with the intention of paying it off after entering a profitable career. It isn't clear to me what is going to motivate people to study for years. (Well, I would have done it because I was fascinated by math and physics, but mine is a minority perspective, and I would have studied, albeit in a less directed and intense way, even if college had been impossible.

I agree that trade has in the past acted to suppress war. I'm not sure it's working that way in the present. Certainly simple economic arguments don't apply. The US spent more to invade Iran than the entire wealth of the country would have represented if we'd carted it off, and we didn't bother. It was politics extremely much more than economics. (I've heard it asserted that the reason for the war was that Iran started negotiating to sell oil denominated in Euros rather than Dollars. I know of no evidence either pro or con, but it's the most reasonable reason I've heard, if it's true. And since all the other reasons seem utter garbage, I tend to believe it.)

The argument that trade suppresses war has it's shining examples, but there are also many cases where it appears that war is engaged in to control trade.

Now, "Our real problem isn't that China makes t-shirts": That's not clear, or perhaps not exact to the point I was asserting. T-shirts was an example of an industry that isn't inherently centralized. Another such industry is software construction, but notice that due to the laws, customs, and business regulations of the US most software development (for profit) *IS* centralized. How things could be changed is not a subject on which I am competent to speak, but I am competent to observe the pattern. My suspicion is that this has to do with the distribution system. I have heard that to get notable promotion by or positioning within a store, you need to ... compensate ... the store owner. I used compensate where I would have liked to say bribe. I feel the process should be as illegal as other sorts of kickback, and the laws against all forms of kickback should be more rigorously enforced. Even the existing laws against bundling are either not enforced, or need to be considerably stronger.

But these are details. There are nearly endless details, it's the summation of them that tends to encourage the formation of large organizations with centralized control, not any particular one. (An exception might be the wretched and unjust Citizens United decision...though I might go back to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US 394 (1886) and find that it, and all decisions based upon it were likewise unjust. [Or perhaps the original decision was just, but the way that it was phrased made it unjust.])

Comment Re:But that would destroy the economy! (Score 1) 181

If people can store cash in their mattress, you can't jack up negative interest rates and force consumers to spend like they should! The flow of money to the 1% would decrease slightly! Won't anyone think of the 1%?

No, you just print more money, and hand it to the 1%. That keeps the money flowing that direction, and devalues the cash in mattresses.

Comment Re: Smart! (Score 1) 181

I can imagine many gov't entities that may choose to not accept 'cash', because accepting cash requires additional security that checks, CC, and money orders don't, requires you to keep sufficient change on-hand, make bank deposits, etc.

No, government agencies cannot refuse to accept cash for anything which is mandatory, and they can't refuse pennies either. On the other hand, if you think pissing off your local government with a shitstorm of pennies is a good idea, you've got another think coming. The definition of legal tender is that you can use it to settle a debt. If someone doesn't want your pennies, they have to tell you before you incur the debt that they won't accept them, same as how a gas station has to post a sign saying no 100s if they don't want those and they let you pump before paying.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computer programmers do it byte by byte.