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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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: Re:Fukushima and Chernobyl not worse case failures (Score 1) 175

It's certainly not a 'hoax'. Coal contains (to varying degrees) all of these pollutants.

Coal plants do often have filters these days, but always:

http://www.epa.gov/mats/powerp...

the emissions are significant, and not everything gets filtered out.

Also the filtering is expensive and the carbon dioxide that coal emits is becoming a *massive* problem. Although carbon capture has been trialled, it makes coal non competitive with other technologies.

Comment: Re:Wrong Focus (Score 1) 113

by Rei (#49372263) Attached to: SpaceX's New Combustion Technologies

Used an online calculator earlier but clearly I had entered something in wrong last time because the results it's coming back with this time are different (and much lower). Tungsten could radiate around 10kW/m around its melting point. Graphite could do 14,5kW/m at its sublimation point. Hafnium carbide, 17,2kW/m at its melting point (though ceramics are brittle and probably not suitable).

An ideal near-term radiative solution for minimizing mass in this regard would involve a working fluid in carbon tubes carrying a thermal fluid out to carbon radiators.

There's also radiator concepts that don't use solids at all - various kinds of droplet radiators.

Comment: Re:I'm pretty sure Jesus said not to do this (Score 1) 395

The problem is where do you draw the line?

Why is there a line to be drawn?

Photographer refuses to take photographs at a non-white wedding because of "religious" beliefs. Will take photos of any white ceremony.

And? Can the couple still get married? Can they find a photographer? Pretty sure they can. The photographer's bigotry does not pick anyone's pocket or break anyone's leg. It does not interfere with anyone's rights. Let him turn down paying customers and give opportunity to his competition, it's sort of a self-limiting problem.There is no need for any action here, any more than if a Catholic music composer accepts a commission from the diocese but doesn't accept a commission from the local synagogue (or from the Westborough Baptist Church).

Comment: Re:How is bigotry a good thing? (Score 1) 395

Explain to us then the rational opposing position then. Explain to us the pro-discrimination position whereby we should be permitted to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, or even sexual orientation when none of those things should matter.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all things except what the state have decided are proper should be forbidden.

Yes, among enlightened people race, gender, age, or even sexual orientation should not matter. That does not imply that unenlightened people should be subject to criminal prosecution or lawsuits.

You should be permitted to discriminate in some areas because you should be permitted to do anything you want that does not interfere with the fundamental rights of others. Housing is a fundamental right, so you shouldn't be legally able to discriminate in renting out a house. But hiring a specific person to take your wedding pictures is not a fundamental right, so a photographer should be legally able to turn down a paying customer for whatever reason they want, even bigotry.

Comment: Re:Disagree (Score 1) 395

If they are open to the general public it ain't so clean cut.

Your home, yes. No questions about it. If you don't want any gays, Jews, blacks or Christians in your home, there's nothing anyone could say. I'd still consider you an asshole for discriminating people for something they have little control over (well, except the Christian maybe), but it's your private space and it should be your prerogative to decide who may and may not enter it.

It's different if we're dealing with a place that can (and by its very definition and the general idea behind it should) be frequented by visitors and other strangers you have no direct connection to, i.e. a business. What do you think would happen if someone made a "White only" restaurant? Or how about "Muslim only"? Think that would sit well?

Comment: Re:Good thing Cook doesn't make law (Score 1) 395

Why? Why do they have "the right not to be mocked"? Does that idiot that searches corn circles while wearing a tinfoil hat so he won't be controlled by the Illuminati have the right not to be mocked?

I'm forced to live among people who have imaginary friends, and not only that, they let their imaginary friend dictate what they can do and who they may speak with! Where's my right to be left alone by those loonies?

Comment: Re:Moats are still a good idea (Score 1) 152

Water features also provide significant air quality benefits, especially if you aerate them. There's just lots of good reasons to implement them. Trees, as well; I cringe when I see posts permanently erected for vehicle control. Removable or sinking bollards, certainly. They have their purpose. But fixed ones?

Comment: Re:Why people care about sports (Score 2) 146

by drinkypoo (#49370063) Attached to: At the Track With Formula E, the First e-Racing Series

So you truly have no comprehension of what makes sports popular do you? It's PRECISELY the fact that people think of these teams as "their team".

I like motorsports because I like motorsports, I don't care about any particular team. It's thrilling just to see it. That's what's great about stuff like world rally.

Comment: Re:No they don't (Score 1) 168

by Mr. Slippery (#49370051) Attached to: Chinese Scientists Plan Solar Power Station In Space

Doing the math with the wrong numbers isn't informative. You've ignored the atmospheric losses suffered by ground-based systems -- clouds, dust, the opacity of air. I think you're also being much more generous in estimating the potential lifetime of ground-based systems than space-based ones, which skews your numbers.

It may be that the gains are small enough to not justify the launch costs, though that depends on how much we value land taken up by solar arrays.

Somebody's terminal is dropping bits. I found a pile of them over in the corner.

Working...