Forgot your password?

Comment: Where? (Score 2) 218

by LWATCDR (#47732187) Attached to: When Customer Dissatisfaction Is a Tech Business Model

Cable companies are granted "franchises" in most cities. If you want fast internet net you have no choice.
Add to the fact that we have been in a race to the bottom for customer service for a long time. You average slashdot reader calls anything that is available cheaper from china on Ebay over priced.
The constantly want free as in beer software.
And yet complain over bad customer support.
Back in the long dark history of computers I worked in a computer store. We had a large margin on the computers so we took the time help people learn how to use them. Today their is probably $10 margin on your typical PC and yet you wonder why companies farm out support.

Comment: Re:Huge bird and fish kills (Score 1) 507

by LWATCDR (#47731789) Attached to: Solar Plant Sets Birds On Fire As They Fly Overhead

I am afraid you did not read it.
It was comparing nuclears costs with Natural gas which produces a lot more carbon than nuclear or solar or wind. It is also using the costs of fracked gas. It said that renewables "wind" was becoming competitive with nuclear....
Wind is becoming but isn't yet.
The costs are also based on our aging reactors and does not look at the cost reductions available from mass production of a standardized design. Also does not touch on LFTRs which offer a much lower cost of construction since they do not require a full containment dome.
You are not even reading what you post.
Yes if want co2 and fracking you can not beat natural gas. Natural gas is much cheaper than even coal today much less solar, wind, and nuclear.
So if you are pro climate change dismissing nuclear makes all the sense in the world. Thing is that even fracked gas is not a long term solution.

Comment: Re:Huge bird and fish kills (Score 1) 507

by LWATCDR (#47730603) Attached to: Solar Plant Sets Birds On Fire As They Fly Overhead

Cost of solar at peak production? Sure it is cheap. Cost of solar at 6pm in December?
And your sites could not be biased at all since on is called and the other
Puff propaganda pieces but the one from Austin supports my suggestion of solar as an opportunistic source not as a baseload.
As I said that you have so self identified with solar you have gone beyond reason.

Comment: Re:Hope So (Score 1) 365

by LWATCDR (#47728303) Attached to: Would Scottish Independence Mean the End of UK's Nuclear Arsenal?

"About 3,500 of the jobs at the Clyde base are uniformed Royal Navy personnel, 1,700 are contractors and 1,600 are other civilian employees, most of whom work principally on other aspects of the Navy's submarine programme, rather than Trident."

If they move the Trident subs they will move all the nuclear subs. The RN does not have any large non-nuclear subs in service.
You would not just have those jobs leave but so would many of the jobs in the shops where the people from the base spend their money.

New Scotland Navy? Okay....

Really you just flat out trust a site that has a strong anti-nuclear stand to give you the truth about the down side of what they want? Do you no know human nature. They will do research and then stop once they get the answer they want. You have to have an open mind and try and see past any sites agenda.

Comment: Re:Huge bird and fish kills (Score 1) 507

by LWATCDR (#47728171) Attached to: Solar Plant Sets Birds On Fire As They Fly Overhead

1 That is just the active known reserves.
2 There has been no Uranium mines opened in decades.
3 Japan, France, Russia, and China already reprocess fuel and use plutonium for fuel. That stretches the fuel to many centuries. The use doing the same would not increase the risk of nuclear proliferation.
4 New reactors can use Thorium which is 3x as common as Uranium but only .72% of uranium is "fuel" while 100 of Thorium is.
So that means per pound of you have 137x the fuel in Thorium than Uranium. It is potential fuel because it has to breed but it is a proven process and it is breed in situ. So if we have 240 years at present levels 240 X 137 ==33120 years now 33120X3 for the fact that Thorium is 3 times as common = 99360 years at current consumption. So let's divide that by 7 and you have 14194 years of coal replacement for the planet just from Thorium. If we have not come up with something better by then we are in deep trouble.
So yes if we stick to just using the lest efficient way to use uranium as fuel we only have about 40 years if replace all coal.
  5. We do not have to replace all coal with nuclear because we can also use wind as baseload with natural gas fired backing plants to start.
6. In the near term not every nation will have the option to replace coal with nuclear because of economics and stability. For them coal and if they are lucky natural gas along with wind and solar will be their option. The good thing is that if the US reduces it's use of coal the cost will come down for poorer nations and the net CO2 emissions should still be lower. Once Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are in mass production then it can used by nations that are less stable since they have extremely high safety margins and very low margins for proliferation.

Comment: Re: Nobody else seems to want it (Score 1) 690

by LWATCDR (#47722993) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

I did.
"You think you want a stable kernel interface, but you really do not, and
you don't even know it. What you want is a stable running driver, and
you get that only if your driver is in the main kernel tree. You also
get lots of other good benefits if your driver is in the main kernel
tree, all of which has made Linux into such a strong, stable, and mature
operating system which is the reason you are using it in the first

I do not agree that the only get this is if your driver is in the main kernel tree.

Comment: Re:Nobody else seems to want it (Score 1) 690

by LWATCDR (#47721963) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: 'I Still Want the Desktop'

"This is complete BS. Drivers can be delivered as source and built on the target machine or as binaries with the appropriate packageing."
Which means when you get a kernel update things stop working until you fiddle with the drivers.

I do not see any value of not allowing an ABI. Even if you limited it to just FOSS drivers! I would like it to be universal but even FOSS drivers that are not included in the Kernel become a PITA when you do a update.

Comment: Re:I'd love to be in his class (Score 1) 178

by LWATCDR (#47721529) Attached to: Professor Steve Ballmer Will Teach At Two Universities This Year

I think many people feel that Microsoft missed the boat on many opportunities.
The Mobile market to start with. They had a Mobile OS years before Microsoft and failed to innovate enough to move it into the consumer market. They had a lock on enterprise email but it was RIM that made the solution for mobile email.
They failed in the media market.
They are doing well in enterprise but Chromebooks and boxes are becoming more of a danger. They are not doing well in the tablet market at all. WP8 is good but maybe too little too late.

Yes he did well at making money during his time as CEO but is the company in a good position for the future? That is up for debate.
All in all I agree with you. Microsoft was not destroyed at all it may not have been lead as well as it could have but it did well.

Comment: Re:Huge bird and fish kills (Score 1) 507

by LWATCDR (#47721309) Attached to: Solar Plant Sets Birds On Fire As They Fly Overhead

Actually yes there is
The US could easily replace coal for the next 100 years with nuclear without reprocessing.
At present we have over 230 years supply of uranium so even if we double our use we have well over 100 years of supply and that it without finding any more and without breeding more fuel..
If you go to thorium it is a lot longer well over 1000 years.
And if we we use breeder reactors you are talking several thousand years supply.
Yes some reactors are over budget but other GEN III reactors are already in service in Japan.

Comment: Re:Huge bird and fish kills (Score 1) 507

by LWATCDR (#47720487) Attached to: Solar Plant Sets Birds On Fire As They Fly Overhead

It has not proven to be a huge proliferation risk, France and Japan both reprocess fuel. That fear has so far been unfounded.
Even if you still want to use non-proliferation as a reason to not process fuel it is not an issue with Thorium cycle reactors since no plutonium is produced. .

Solar is an opportunistic source of power. You can use it to replace some peaking load when available. It is not effective as a baseload.
Wind is better but still requires peaking style backing plants.
It maybe that large scale thermal solar plants have too high of an ecological impact but those issues are not found in pv solar plants.

People need to stop advocating for technologies and start advocating for solutions.
The fast path to low carbon energy independence for the US is to replace coal baseload plants with nuclear and build solar and wind.
In the short term electricity base load should come from nuclear, hydro, wind, and natural gas.
Peaking from natural gas plus solar when available.
Medium term Baseload Nuclear, hydro, wind. Peaking natural gas, solar. transportation fuel reformulated natural gas.
Long term Baseload unchanged, Peaking synthetic CH4 and H2 plus solar, transportation reformulated synthetic natural gas.

I left out electric from transportation because while it is practical for trains and cars "if the costs keep coming down" it will not be for ships, trains, and long haul trucks. With enough cheap energy it is possible to make CH4 from the air and water and then make that into diesel and jet fuel.
Of course very long term we may get fusion and or super batteries that will make storage more practical but they are not here.

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn