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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Shady Misinformation About Real Name Policy Too (Score 1) 292

by squiggleslash (#49562001) Attached to: Google Insiders Talk About Why Google+ Failed

Who said he was using Facebook? I also avoided G+, and had avoided FB for much the same reason.

FWIW my "social networking" involved various Blogging networks (such as LJ) and Twitter. Google+ would probably have had me given they made it a super Twitter, but for the real names policy.

Comment: Re:artificial sweeteners spike insulin (Score 1) 226

by MachineShedFred (#49561979) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

Unless you're soaking in a hot tub that is:

A. actually using chlorine (most use bromine because it's much more stable at hot tub temperatures, doesn't cause people's eyes to burn, and doesn't fade bathing suits) and
B. being Dichlor-shocked while you're sitting in it,

you're talking about a concentration of 3-6 parts per million if the maintenance is being done properly. It's enough to kill off single-celled organisms, but not enough to do jack shit to your skin.

Comment: Re:Since when (Score 1) 225

by Rei (#49561953) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

Let me take a wild guess that the hospital said he was a-okay.

People with phenylketonuria are not that hypersensitive to drinks containing aspartame. Protein-rich foods is usually more challenging to deal with since they're harder to avoid and can provide more phenylalanine. And the condition is not an immediate reaction like a food allergy, it's an accumulative problem. There's no way drinking a diet soda should have landed him in the hospital.

I have a strong suspicion that this person was like 90% of "gluten intolerant" persons: a self-diagnosed hypochondriac.

Comment: Re:danger vs taste (Score 1) 225

by Rei (#49561817) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

at a bare minimum they are less likely to eat some of your food.

Gut bacteria are not "eating your food", they're making food for you. They consume that which your body was not able to break down (such as some types of starches and sugars) and produce things that the body can absorb, like short chain fatty acids. Rodent studies show that if you kill all of a rat's gut flora with antibiotics that they have to consume about 30% more calories to maintain the same weight.

If gut bacteria were consuming significant amounts of our calories we would have long ago evolved to fight them off. They help us get more calories from our food.

Comment: Re:danger vs taste (Score 1) 226

by squiggleslash (#49561691) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

sugar (is) pretty much the only ingredient that does NOT have a daily % listed. It is due to the sugar lobby fighting reports from years back showing sugar is the real killer and reason for obesity in so many folks.

Based upon the standard label:

Total Carb: 39g 13%
Sugars: 38g

the recommendations are not micromanaging which types of carb you eat - doesn't matter if you're eating potatoes or sugar, the recommendation is of the total - and for those with dietary concerns about sugars specifically (such as people with diabetes) the critical information is right there.

This makes sense. If from a health point of view, outside of specific concerns about diabetes, there's no "right" balance of sugars to non-sugars, then I wouldn't expect the label to suggest you have to eat a certain amount of sugars each day.

Comment: Re:danger vs taste (Score 1) 225

by Rei (#49561613) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

Going from fatty to not fatty requires precisely one thing: reducing the amount of calories in versus the amount of calories out.

Nothing else.

Some routes may be easier to take than others, reducing cravings and the like. But it all comes down to energy in vs. energy out. One can diet on eating nothing but twinkies.

Comment: Re:danger vs taste (Score 1) 226

by squiggleslash (#49561601) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

Sales of diet Pepsi are falling because half of them are buying Pepsi Max instead

I suspect Pepsi Max would be in that bracket of "Diet sodas" whose sales are falling. In any case, could it be that Pepsi Max exists because sales of diet sodas are falling? That is, it was an attempt to remarket a failing product?

Comment: Re:danger vs taste (Score 2) 226

by Rei (#49561581) Attached to: Pepsi To Stop Using Aspartame

Aspartame does break down into poison. One of the components it breaks down into is methanol. Wood alcohol. The stuff that makes you blind. Drinking the amount of aspartame found in 14 cases of pop every day would fill your system with a large amount of methanol. No question that's going to have negative effects.

The amount of methanol actually found in *normal* consumption of diet sodas, however, is similar to the amount found in things like fruit juice. If your body can deal with fruit juice, it can deal with aspartame-sweetened drinks. As always, it's the dose that makes the poison.

Yes, there is a positive correlation between drinking diet sodas and being overweight. But that's an expected correlation, not a causation. Seriously, what sort of person who's not prone (for whatever reasons) to weight gain is suddenly going to decide, "You know, I want to switch from normal pepsi to diet."? The people who start drinking diet are the ones having trouble with weight gain already. The problem is, a can of pepsi is 150 calories. That's the amount of calories in 1/3 cup of raisins. Yeah, it helps somewhat with your calorie consumption, but it's not the big picture on its own.

Comment: Re:Hispanics replaced by... (Score 1) 194

No, TFA was talking about picking machines from Spain, and even said that they're from Spain. Both of the two systems mentioned, AGROBOT and Plant Tape, are from Spanish companies. The AC saw the word "Spanish" and stupidly thought that means "Mexican".

The AC said something stupid, I pointed out what they said that was stupid, and that should have been the end of it. Instead we have you trying to pretend that what they said wasn't actually stupid. It was. Let's accept that and move on.

Comment: Re:With the best will in the world... (Score 2) 257

by Rei (#49561229) Attached to: Audi Creates "Fuel of the Future" Using Just Carbon Dioxide and Water

I've noticed most criticisms of EV charging simply relate to a total lack of imagination about how to address engineering issues. For example I've seen people rant and rave and run all sorts of calculations about how it's impossible to run large amounts of power through a manageable cable for an electric car, and therefore fast chargers are a big scam... pure vitriol, and overlooking one tiny detail: ... nobody says that your cable has to be passively cooled.

All of those cable thickness guidelines for home wiring and the like are for passively cooled cables. You don't have to use a cable the thickness of your wrist to deliver a fast charge, you just have to wrap it in a cooling sheath. Some of the highest power chargers already do this. Problem solved really, really easily.

Comment: Re:With the best will in the world... (Score 1) 257

by Rei (#49561171) Attached to: Audi Creates "Fuel of the Future" Using Just Carbon Dioxide and Water

It's worse than that. Your diesel engine may be 30-40% efficient when running in its optimal power band, but of course it doesn't sit around at its optimal power band all the time while a car is driving. In practice diesel cars average about 25% efficient, gasoline cars about 20%. They're slowly improving, mind you.

Comment: Re:With the best will in the world... (Score 5, Informative) 257

by Rei (#49561073) Attached to: Audi Creates "Fuel of the Future" Using Just Carbon Dioxide and Water

"Maybe, maybe not"? Please, you know that the answer is "not even remotely close". Even when you start with petroleum as your feedstock and only waste 10-15% of the energy it contains in refining and distribution, you've still got the car only turning 20% of the energy therein into useful kinetic energy (25% in the case of diesels), versus an average of about 85% of the electricty into kinetic energy (minus about 8% transmission losses), plus automatically gaining hybrid-style regen. Even if the process was 100% efficient - which it won't be anywhere even close to that - just the difference in propulsion technolgies would put the EV at 4 times the efficiency. Based on related processes, I'd wager that this tech is probably along the order of 30% efficient, so you're looking at about 13 times more range per kWh on an EV than a ICE car fuelled by this fuel. Which means 1/13th as many square kilometers of wind turbines, 1/13th as many solar panel factories, 1/13th as many dammed rivers, etc. Yes, it really matters.

But come on, don't play dumb and pretend that you actually think that the efficiency of taking electricity, extracting gases from the air, converting them into a mixture of complex hydrocarbons, then burning them in an ICE and facing Carnot losses, is somehow "maybe, maybe not" more efficient than using the electricity directly.

it has a higher energy density than batteries, which is super important for vehicle applications.

It really, really isn't. Almost everyone on the planet would be driving an EV at today's energy densities if one factor was significantly improved, but that factor isn't energy density. It's cost per kilowatt hour.

A 250Wh/mi EV that can go 400 miles (8 hours driving without a stop at an average speed of 60mph) needs 100kWh. At a reasonably good but not spectacular 200Wh/kg, that's 500kg. Due to electric drivetrains' superior power density, switching a low power gasoline drivetrain to an equivalent electric one saves about 100kg. Switching a high power gasoline drivetrain to electric can save a couple hundred kilograms. So you're increasing the weight of a car by a few hundred kilograms. You really think your average consumer would give a rat's arse if their car is a couple hundred kilometers heavier if it lets them drive on fuel that costs a third as much?

Of course, these are only a couple of the issues (I'll ignore environmental ones for now because I know a lot of people here don't give a rat's arse about them). Added weight hurts handling on cornering. But EVs make better power to weight ratios easier, and especially improve performance on low end torque. They also give designers a lot more flexibility on placement of components, which can translates into things like more spacious interiors for a given vehicle footprint, and almost always means a lower CG. One has to charge, but one never has to go to a gas station, and most people would find plugging in in their garage much more convenient than a special trip to a gas station and standing outside in whatever weather. This leaves open the question of charge times, of course. But if you can drive hundreds of miles on a single charge and charge up on a fast charger during lunch and then take off again, it's pretty irrelevant. Gasoline cars need big tanks to minimize the inconvenience of having to stop for gasoline regularly in your daily life. Using fast chargers of course means having a fast charger infrastructure, but that's an eminently addressable chicken and egg problem. Modern li-ion batteries deal quite well with fast charges.

The short of it is, if today's batteries were cheap enough - no better density or anything else - electric cars would very quickly take over the market place. Other improvements in technology will improve the sales proposition, but they're not essential.

The time spent on any item of the agenda [of a finance committee] will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved. -- C.N. Parkinson