Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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:Fuck it - everyone for themselves. (Score 1) 344

by LynnwoodRooster (#49134041) Attached to: The Groups Behind Making Distributed Solar Power Harder To Adopt
Wait, so they pay you when you give them 10 kW, then don't charge you when you take those 10 kW back? You make double, effectively? That's a "heads I win / tails you lose" kind of deal... So who pays to keep the grid in place that allows you to do that?

Comment: Re:No love for 2010 lead-free devices (Score 2) 99

The RoHS Directive came into force in early 2003 and was required since 2006 and on. Apple had a good 4+ years to work with lead-free solder (well, not Apple but Foxconn) and apparently did so with great results for half a decade before the computers being affected. It's probably NOT a manufacturing defect, but a design defect - given that the manufacturing process has been solid for quite a while prior to this issue creeping up.

Comment: Re:Sweet, sweet karma (Score 1) 257

by LynnwoodRooster (#49062821) Attached to: Tesla Factory Racing To Retool For New Models

Your electric bill for the same 15,000 miles would be about $400. The extra $1300 a year can go a long way to buy a nice electric car rather than a POS bottom of the line econobox oil burner.

Until Mr. Musk - or the stockholders/board of Tesla - decide it's time to start making a profit and not giving away tens of thousands of dollars on each car in order to gain customers... Then the price of the car will necessarily increase well beyond the "break even" cost versus an ICE powered vehicle.

Comment: Re:^THIS (Score 1) 493

The key is the amount spent per classroom. Out of $277,000 spent on the classroom, typically $56,000 makes it to the teacher. Why is just 20% getting to the teacher? And what assurance do we have that additional dollars wouldn't walk away from the teacher - like the vast majority are now? Doesn't it frustrate you that 1 out of every 5 dollars spent on education ends up in the hands of a teacher?

Comment: Re:^THIS (Score 2) 493

Funding for public schools needs to increase at all levels.

Why? How much is enough? The average class size right now is about 22 students (average of elementary and secondary), and about $12,600 per student. So that's $277,000 per classroom of funding. Of that, the teacher "cost" is about $6800 per student. Meaning about half the income goes to the teacher (or $149,600 - for a class of 22) and the other half goes for everything else.

IF this was, in fact, what was happening - as is claimed by the links I provided - then teachers would be exceedingly well-paid - better than 94% of all taxpayers in the US. But this isn't happening. Why? Maybe money (and VAST amounts of it) are being siphoned off for other things. Lots of vice-principals, lots of extra counselors and specialty cafeterias, lots of buying of fads of technology, lots of half-million-dollar-a-year union bosses, etc.

We already massively outspend the rest of the OECD on a per-student basis. And we pay well in the middle of the pack for the OECD. If we cannot educate children AND pay highly desirable salaries with over a quarter of a million per classroom - something is SERIOUSLY fucked up. All the other OECD countries seem to do a lot better in compensating their teachers whilst spending considerably less per student. The LAST thing we should do is simply throw more money at the problem. Because too much money is already wasted...

Comment: Re:Hard To Imagine... (Score 3, Interesting) 191

by LynnwoodRooster (#49019979) Attached to: Microsoft Trademarks "Windows 365"

I don't know how their Office subscription is doing though, so maybe they've snookered some people into getting used to it.

I like the Office 365 subscription. It's $10/month (versus $400 for Office Pro), I get regular updates, and I can install it on 5 machines and 5 phones. I currently have it installed on 4 laptops and two phones. To do those installs via hard media would be $1600. It'll take over 13 years of subscription to meet the price of buying the equivalent suites for my installs. And with Microsoft rolling significant updates every couple years, this is a vastly cheaper way for me to keep up with the releases. Not sure how the leads to being "snookered"...

Comment: Re:this is why people balk at climate change (Score 1) 481

by LynnwoodRooster (#48986561) Attached to: DOT Warns of Dystopian Future For Transportation

Ahh, but that 3mm per annum is GLOBAL sea level rise. You need to look a RELATIVE sea level change ( in which GLOBAL sea level change plays a more minor role) in a per area basis due to crustal load change from isostatic / subsidence adjustments ( for example pile a bunch of sediment on the crust and it sinks from the extra weight ), and just plain changes in sedimentation / erosion rates. Don't forget that sea level displacement is somewhere in the 200-300:1 intrusion:height ration. That means for every 1mm of rise the water will go inland on average 200-300mm.

Hmmm. So if the airport is 4 meters above sea level, how many mm will it have to rise before it starts to cover the airport? Intrusion is immaterial in this case, it's height that matters.

Comment: Re:this is why people balk at climate change (Score 1) 481

by LynnwoodRooster (#48985665) Attached to: DOT Warns of Dystopian Future For Transportation

See pg.116-125 of the report, it's not as freakishly alarmist as the summary indicates (and the pages are big font and full of pictures). It points out that Louis Armstrong airport in New Orleans is almost two feet below sea level.

So what you're saying is that the airport is the higher than the city around it... Good! We can worry about the airport flooding a few decades after the city is hopelessly lost...

Comment: Re:this is why people balk at climate change (Score 1) 481

by LynnwoodRooster (#48985641) Attached to: DOT Warns of Dystopian Future For Transportation

30 years and airports will be underwater? I'm willing to believe man has an effect on the climate, but alarmist crap like this doesn't help your cause. Did John Kerry start working for the dot?

I can see some airports being under water in 30 years if time suddenly fast-forwarded. Take SFO for example: the runway is just above sea level. YVR is another coastal airport in the same situation. If we fast-forwarded 30 years, the runways could end up under water during extreme high tides -- ASSUMING NO DIKES OR BACKFILLING IS DONE IN THE MEANTIME.

Considering the fact that most airports lay new tarmac in that amount of time, all they'd have to do is make it a bit thicker next time and this is no longer an issue.

So yeah; it's reasonable until you factor in the fact that other things change over time too.

SFO is at 4 meters; YVR is at 4.3 meters. Maximum tides at both locations are about 2.1 meters. Meaning in the next 30 years we'd need to see about 2 meters of sea-level rise. That would be about 6.6 meters per century. Given we're looking at about 3.3mm per year, it would take about 2000 years to put those airports below high tide levels. I think the 30 year estimate isn't quite there...

"Well, if you can't believe what you read in a comic book, what *can* you believe?!" -- Bullwinkle J. Moose

Working...