Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

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:led costs $22????? (Score 3, Informative) 166

by Moridineas (#49363833) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon

I just made another post about this, but I have about about 15-16 cree bulbs in my house. I take a picture of the receipt and the packaging at the time of every purchase.

I've had trouble with two--both 40W TW series bulbs. These bulbs flickered--they would turn off and if I adjusted--or even tapped on the bulb--the bulb would come back on for a time. The problem got worse until they barely worked anymore. I thought it was the fixture until I tried one of the bad bulbs in a desk lamp and had the same issue.

Anyway, I emailed Cree tech support with the photo of the receipt and packaging and had 3 new bulbs fedexed to me two days later.

I'm annoyed by the quality lapse (less than a year), but I don't have any problems with their response.

Comment: Re:okay, but LED bulbs are nowhere near $22/ea (Score 4, Interesting) 166

by Moridineas (#49363811) Attached to: Graphene Light Bulbs Coming To Stores Soon

Hmmm, interesting. I've upgraded almost my entire house to Cree bulbs over the last two years. I had one fixture that had three 40W TW (high CRI) bulbs--the only 40W crees I've used--that were all bought at the same time. Two of the bulbs died within a week of each other--they flicker off and if you tap them will turn back on. I'm assuming some solder or some other connection has weakened. I'm going to try to fix them, but that's neither here nor there.

I emailed Cree support with a picture of my receipt and a picture of the original packaging (taken at the time I purchased them). Cree immediately offered to Fedex me three new bulbs (including a replacement for the third bulb) and did not even ask for me to send the old bulbs back. I had new bulbs two days later.

I'm disappointed that the bulbs didn't last that long, but I couldn't ask for any better response out of Cree's support.

Comment: Intermittent Fasting (Score 1) 493

by Moridineas (#49329957) Attached to: Hacking Weight Loss: What I Learned Losing 30 Pounds

Since we're talking about hacking your diet, this is something that has worked incredibly well for me. I fast on Mondays (most Mondays, not all)--I don't consume anything with calories. I drink water, and that's it. I usually end up eating dinner Sunday night and then the next meal I eat will be lunch or dinner on Tuesday.

The strangest thing to me is that I end up feeling really good on Tuesdays! It's somewhat difficult to describe, but when I wake up, I just feel good (and not particularly hungry). The best description I can think of is an extreme opposite of that feeling of "I ate too much!" Mondays are sometimes hard in the evenings when I do get hungry, though I don't get headaches (sometimes people report getting headaches when fasting). I do think that fasting is somewhat addictive, and I can see why pretty much every culture and religion around the world incorporates some form of fasting.

If you have never tried fasting for an extended period, I would give it a try. It's an interesting experience, and for me, not at all unpleasant.

I started fasting because I wanted to try it as an exercise of personal discipline, but I have ended up loosing around 30 lbs over the course of the first year (and keeping it off for 2 more years). I don't calorie count on other days, but I do--and did before fasting--eat reasonably healthily.

Comment: Re:turn-about isn't just fair-play, it's PROPER pl (Score 1) 764

I cannot determine which of the narrowly defined punishable exemptions from the first amendment the Okies would fall under? They weren't inciting, they weren't fighting, there was no public danger, etc. It was just plain, dumb, hateful speech. And hateful speech is protected.

What do you think?

Comment: Re:turn-about isn't just fair-play, it's PROPER pl (Score 1) 764

Not exactly. A noise ordinance that specifically targeted, e.g., loud rap music (but not loud classical music or loud NPR playing--if such a thing exists!), would be considered an unconstitutional law. The law doesn't have to be vague or confusing to be unconstitutional, though vague or confusing laws certainly can be unconstitutional tool!

Comment: Re:turn-about isn't just fair-play, it's PROPER pl (Score 1) 764

So you must prove malice for any noise ordinance to be enforced against a noisy neighbor? Reality proves you wrong.

Whoever claimed that "malice" was involved in the standard is quite wrong, but it's worth noting that local noise ordinances are struck down as unconstitutional all the time.

Comment: Re:turn-about isn't just fair-play, it's PROPER pl (Score 1) 764

I believe the university will win (and it should). So, when will we know who's right and who's wrong?

Right in terms of predictions? In a couple of months or years? :-) Right in terms of "good outcome or bad outcome"? That's another question. I don't believe the government should be able to punish unpopular speech. That's also pretty much the accepted case law--universities cannot punish students based solely on unpopular speech.

The law doesn't agree. If you deliberately try to aggravate people, you can and will be charged. Whether it's for verbal assault or one of the nuisance laws, there are plenty of ways to compel someone deliberately causing harm from causing that harm.

I should have been more clear. Absolutely there are a very few specific exceptions. Threats of immediate violence are not protected speech--for instance, if the frat members had said "we're going to kill some n*rs" that is a clear threat of violence. That is not protected. Another (famous) example is shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater creating a potentially deadly situation. None of these situations apply here.

Contrary to what you say, you can be aggravating and you can even try to deliberately aggravate people without breaking the law! Think of those "god hates fags" morons. That's pretty much as hateful, stupid, and aggravating as you can get, but it's still protected speech.

Comment: Re: turn-about isn't just fair-play, it's PROPER p (Score 1) 764

The university is not a government institution and they didn't send these kids to jail. The university chose to no longer affiliate with that particular frat.

Well, actually, the University of Oklahoma is a public--meaning government--institution. Given your errant assumption, I don't think the rest of your post needs replying to?

Comment: Re:turn-about isn't just fair-play, it's PROPER pl (Score 1) 764

I'm sure the fraternity brothers in Oklahoma thought it was a hoot to sing a little ditty about making sure no black person every can be pledged, but the university hosting the party thought it kind of sucked, so out you go.

Disagree. I believe this will go to court (and I hope it does), and I believe the university will lose (and it should).

Just because you think something is fun doesn't mean anyone else has to put up with it.

"Put up with it" is an interesting phrase. If you don't like my speech, you can ignore me. You can denounce me. You can organize a boycott. But, you cannot compel me with law to stop.

If you want to make your little dick joke software at home, go right ahead. If you try to distribute it using somebody else's shit, don't whine if they tell you to fuck off.

Agreed. As a private organization, github can do whatever they want. Note that this is different from how, for instance, private bakeries or florists, are allowed to operate. They cannot pick and choose their customers based on customer speech!

Comment: Re:What a weird statistic. (Score 1) 262

by Moridineas (#49252389) Attached to: US Wind Power Is Expected To Double In the Next 5 Years

This is also apples and oranges because unless you are both heating your homes the same way the numbers are irrelevant.

This is the only thing you said that I disagree with. If the comparison is being made that "A typical german household is not using half of an american but less then a fifth," then you are having to compare apples and oranges. The net energy usage (or, if you get right down to it, the carbon usage) is the point, rather than an irrelevancy.

The biggest factor of course is the price of electricity. There are market forces at work here. In the Pacific Northwest I pay about $.08/kw. I have barely any (financial) incentive to conserve. Add to that 90% of our power comes from hydro and I have very little guilt as well. Compare that with Germany where it is nearly $.40/kw. I'd probably be a lot more conservative if my electricity was 5x more expensive.

HVAC--for most areas--remains the largest consumer of residential electricity.

Like you, my electrical rate is $.105/kw. I live in a sunny area (far more so than Germany) but the mathematics for solar don't really make sense for me. Even with tax breaks my payback would be a decade out. Plus, most of my electricity is from the local nuclear plant and I likewise don't feel guilty at all (I've never been into self flagellation). I do more to conserve water as that can be (during droughts) more scarce.

"Pull the trigger and you're garbage." -- Lady Blue