Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Polls on the front page of Slashdot? Is the world coming to an end?! Nope; read more about it. ×

Comment: Re:Cost effectiveness (Score 2) 74

by LWATCDR (#49823431) Attached to: Mercedes-Benz Copies Tesla, Plans To Offer Home Energy Storage

Frankly that makes no sense. The 10KWh battery from Tesla is only good for 50 cycles a year. It is a replacement for a back up generator at best. The 7KWh pack could work for solar storage but frankly they are not cost effective no storage method is cost effective except maybe hydro storage.

Comment: Re:DHS was never about Homeland Security (Score 1) 301

On the bright side we have another example of how expensive and incompetent the government is at doing a straightforward task. I'm not saying that the private sector would be more competent, but they sure would be cheaper.

That depends on whether or not the Feds were going to pick up the bill or not. If the Feds are paying, the private sector will make sure they get every dime they can.

Comment: Re:What about the cost for enrichment waste? (Score 1) 137

by LWATCDR (#49821299) Attached to: Cool Tool: The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost Calculator

Solar and Wind both have a part to play. Solar has some real problems with supply/demand that solar fans like to gloss over but Wind backed by natural gas peaking plants works rather well in many areas. Solar does not compete for base load and can not until a massive breakthrough in storage is made and is in production. Molten salt thermal storage, batteries including Teslas, and pumping water are just not good enough to solve the problem. Nuclear and Hydro are the two lowest carbon output base load methods that work today. And who knows this may all be a none issue if Lockheed's high beta fusion reactor works. I tend to be very skeptical about Fusion but Lockheed has a really good track record at doing the amazing.

Comment: Re:Good ruling (Score 1) 144

I agree that zero tolerance is a bad idea, but what they've struck down is the "reasonable person" standard in any kind of criminal case. It has nothing to do with zero tolerance.

IANAL, but I suspect the issue is that to convict someone for a serious crime you generally have to show "mens rea" ("guilty mind") -- that the defendant had the intent of committing the crime in question. If so the ruling may be reasonable, but not for the reasons you suggest. If I'm right, what SCOTUS is saying is that the jury has to determine that the husband actually intended to threaten his wife.

As for the civil liberties implications, they appear to be more limited than most people seem to believe. Threatening someone is still a crime. It's just not a crime to say something someone would misconstrue as a threat, even if that person is being reasonable.

Comment: Re:Like the sailor that blow into his sail... (Score 1) 245

by hey! (#49819399) Attached to: Fuel Free Spacecrafts Using Graphene

Well, without actually reading the article itself I'll venture an opinion of course. If you carried the fuel and lasers yourself it wouldn't be like the sailor blowing on his own sail at all; it's be like the sailor facing the stern and blowing his ship forward. That's because the ship would still be powered by the rearward expulsion of electrons.

The advantage of the system with an external laser is (I presume) that even though it is no doubt very energy inefficient, since all you're expelling is electrons the specific impulse would be quite high. This allows you to apply small amount of thrust, but continuously for a long time without the bulk of your payload being fuel. If you are going to carry the fuel needed to power the thrusters you might as well go with compact ion thrusters.

If it wasn't for Newton, we wouldn't have to eat bruised apples.