Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Radio waves are neither private nor public (Score 1) 303

This is a no-brainer. It is impossible to determine from a radio wave if the transmitter is in a private space or a public space. An office in an office building may or may not be legally private space. A vehicle is private space (as far as voice communication is concerned.)

This is the real key to killing this government spying. Holder's Federal Bureau of Stasi will lose this one real quick.

Comment: Re:Reduced revenues != lost profit (Score 1) 280

by FredThompson (#48564315) Attached to: Utilities Face Billions In Losses From Distributed Renewables

Doubtful. Solar power and other "renewables" are not consistent. I suppose the exceptions are some thermal and water motion systems but those sources are so rare as to be inconsequential.

Electricity cannot be stored efficiently. Thus, power plants need to generate more than the expected peak energy required at any given time. In the case of solar panels, that utility-generated power must be available for use as the solar panel output varies.

The reality is that IF economical storage of electricity ever exists, it will come to the utilities FIRST, industrial use SECOND and individual use far later. Economies of scale apply. Every electrical utility would love to have such tech available. Currently, they must generate at or above the historical/expected peak need at any time. The higher the peak demand, the higher the cost to customers.

Better technologies for individual users to reduce electrical draws would be displays that use primarily reflective light. That would also be much better for human eyesight. Passive heat dissipation and concentration would be really helpful. Imagine how much energy is used for displays and cooling of electronics. I have no idea your age but before home computers and cell phones existed, home use of electrical power was much lower. Things as simple as electric irons and ovens use a huge amount of power because they're huge resistors. Lower-power processors in smartphones would be great. The primary reason they have been getting larger is to have larger internal batteries. Larger screens on them are secondary reasons. Marketing promotes the large screens as a benefit because that's more attractive to people than a thicker device. Of course, the new ones are more like small clipboards, not a radio you can put in a pockets...but I digress.

Comment: Re: Predictions (Score 1) 280

by FredThompson (#48564199) Attached to: Utilities Face Billions In Losses From Distributed Renewables

This comment wasn't "insightful."

Profit IS a requirement because profit is needed to pay for upgrades/maintenance and other contingencies. The alternative is taxing citizens repeatedly at varying rates to match needs.

It's also not as simple as setting a percentage or total profit allowable. Suppose there's a major unexpected accident. The money to repair must come from somewhere. Suppose the population grows quickly or the electrical demands grow quickly such as when people started buying large screen TVs. Investment money must come from somewhere and it must be available when needed.

Comment: Re:Massive farms of artificial trees... (Score 1) 368

by FredThompson (#38682820) Attached to: New CO2 Harvester Could Help Scrub the Air


There is no appreciable atmospheric effect from co2 created by human activity. there is no appreciable heat effect from human co2 production. you are coupling where there is no such statement. human bodies handle excessive heat better than excessive cold. cold is more deadly than heat. there will be no 100ft sea rise. co2 levels rise and fall over time.The earth is far more resilient and self-correcting a system than you assume. People are nowhere near capable of destroying it.

Comment: Re:Massive farms of artificial trees... (Score 1) 368

by FredThompson (#38677612) Attached to: New CO2 Harvester Could Help Scrub the Air

CO2 is used by plants the way you use oxygen. First, the complaint was the predicted "population bomb" where there would be too many people for the Earth's resources. Then came "global warming" where human life overheats the planet. The solution? Lower CO2 so life dies. Brilliant. Here's another idea: More CO2 means more plants means more food means warmer earth means fewer human deaths from weather with less ability for a few people to control the food supply. So...more CO2 means more freedom for everyone on earth. The earth is a self-regulating enivronment. Outlawing food is a death cult.

Comment: Re:Stupid hype (Score 1) 338

by FredThompson (#34035966) Attached to: Power Failure Shuts Down 50 US Nuclear Missiles

Yup, a non-event. I was a missileer at a different base in the 1990s. We had something similar which was caused by an inspector crew who mistakenly screwed up their network credentials (for lack of a better term). The article describes the launch crews trying to "muscle up" their control over the noise then restarting the net, similar to removing power from a computer and givng the capacitors a little time to discharge. There are multiple redundant control and monitoring systems. Control was't lot, it just took a different form for a while as the crews restarted their network. The overwhelming majority of the time missile crew duty is as dull as you can possibly imagine while being conscious, punctuated by periods of extreme panic. The reality is that almost nothing happens, sort of like the Maytag repair man. Something like this gives 10 missileers text they can use on their yearly evaluations to document they accomplished something. Think about it, billions and billions of dollars were spent to create multiple layers of redundancy and security so that...nothing...will happen. The biggest challege a missileer has is not being bored. The systems really are that safe.

Comment: Re:Gasp! OMBFG! You can't sell what isn't yours?!? (Score 1) 120

by FredThompson (#32896032) Attached to: FTC Warns Site Not To Sell Personal Data

That's irrelevant. The information is an asset and they aren't free to dispose of the assets.

Addresses are not private property, even if the road and all surrounding land are private property. Addresses are a function of license to use the road which comes from the government.

It's similar to the way a font can be copyrihted but IP ownership of letters, themselves, is impossible.

Comment: Re:"Fixing the bombs fixes them!" (Score 1) 160

by FredThompson (#30191634) Attached to: Aging Nuclear Stockpile Good For Decades To Come

A car sitting in a barn will rot. There are very few truly inert, physically stable substances. The overwhelming majority of components are constantly on and working. Guidance, communication and status monitoring are constant. ICBM and sub systems are fully powered all the time, ready to go in constant communication with the command structures. Bombs are similar, even when they're in storage. Even solid propellant is subject to constant structural testing. At least, this is true for the US stuff. Maybe a lot of Com Bloc stuff would fizzle. An interesitng tidbit of history: the US uses Ruskie nuke weapon components as fuel in power plants, the Ruskie's bought lots of our outdated battery systems.

Comment: Re:"Fixing the bombs fixes them!" (Score 3, Interesting) 160

by FredThompson (#30177908) Attached to: Aging Nuclear Stockpile Good For Decades To Come

My background: ex-ICBM launch officer and part of a team which designed some support equipment

My comment: Bingo. The issue isn't so much the warhead "baby", it's everything else which helps it go boom when, where how, and under whose authority it should go boom.

Almost every device becomes inefficient over time. Material stress, physical degradation and decreased efficiency over time are why you don't see many automobiles manufactured in 1947 still being used as daily transportation. The same applies to supersonic air delivery systems and support equipment.

Intellectually simplistic or downright stupid comments such as the ones which claim we have X number of nukes needed to destroy all life on the planet are lazy and/or suicidal. The same could be said about salt as the US possess far more salt than is necessary to kill every mammal on the planet many times over.

Comment: Re:More hair-brained ideas for "Global Warming" (Score 1) 418

by FredThompson (#28449451) Attached to: DoE Considers Artificial Trees To Remove CO2

Uhh...Capitalization is a standard grammatical form of EMPHASIS. (You DO realize that your first straw man sentence fragment is grammatically incorrect, don't you?)

The post to which I replied included the lunatic idea that forestry is based on clearcutting, not farming. That was the whole point. Duh.

It's your responsibility to educate yourself with fact, not mine. Ignorance on your part does not create a work requirement on my part.

Almost all non-plant life exhales CO2. Rotting bio creates CO2. CO2 seeps from the Earth itself. Look at percentages of components of the atmosphere for "greenhouse gases" then look at percentage of CO2 created by what you call the "energy sector". You are either disingenuous or confusing size with scale.

It's also irrelevant as the Earth's aggregate temperature is controlled by the Sun, is dynamic and buffered by a constantly changing atmospheric mix. We've been experiencing the typical relatively short warm period between ice ages. Do a little research on your own. Learn to fish, don't beg for one.

The last statement you make is either a second straw man directed at my comments or illustrates a complete ignorance of basic facts on your part.

When the weight of the paperwork equals the weight of the plane, the plane will fly. -- Donald Douglas