Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:Cannot scale anyway (Score 1) 395

I've explained this on Slashdot before: Even if such plants reach "break even", creating more available energy than they use to run, they can't possibly scale to production use because the tests that are even _slightly_ successful use tritium as a critical fuel component. And the only viable source of tritium is ordinary nuclear fission reactors: there is no scalable natural source for it.

There is _no_ fusion technology ever tested, nor realistically proposed that does not rely on tritium. And every source of tritium itself, either earth-bound fission or potentially solar sail collectors for solar tritium, is _itself_ far more efficiently used as a straight power supply by itself. Sustainable fusion is interesting as a technological accomplishment, but it's not a viable power source unless the need for tritum is eliminated.

Several of the designs have additional tritium as a byproduct of the process, thereby being self sustaining.

Comment Eating is Dopamine (Score 1) 381

Which just means that people will eat even more, not getting as fat but filling their arteries with cholesterol and other harmful substances. Just like Americans smoke more, and drink more if it is available, they will keep eating to excess.

When people admit the connection between depression and eating fatty foods yielding a drug like high, they may start to fight the American obesity epidemic.

Comment Re:"sources," eh? "US officials" you say? (Score 3, Insightful) 81

This current round of antagonism goes back to WWII and Russia getting the crap beat out of it by Germany before the US and the UK opened a second front.

And you complain about THEM believing the propaganda? We may have helped the war in Eastern Europe end sooner, but after summer 1943, the eventual victor was never in doubt.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 223

Seriously, it's a sad and transparent attempt to shame the voices of truth into silence.

Truth is easy to claim when you are in a place of power. It is easy to accuse anyone who tries to change the existing system. And no revolution is successful without getting dirty. There is no other choice. Peaceful argument has failed over and over again, since the status quo refuses to listen. Until those in power (mostly middle class white men in this case) can ever admit that there is a major issue that needs to be corrected, then expect the attacks to get nastier. If you don't want that, then start changing the bullshit that controls the IT community. You are the one in power.

Comment Re:Sad (Score 0) 452

It was a user driven site. The users provided much of the value. The users were pissed off. The users struck back. Now the business is scared. What's the problem?

How is there value if the owners of the site aren't making any money? If I had someone who came into my store every day and did nothing but talk with his buddies without buying anything, then I sure as hell would kick him out to the curb. That's what's happening, and everyone is surprised? Web site lets people run amok for years, then decides to rebuild into something that makes money for the VC's. Big deal. Go find another playground to loiter around in.

Comment Re:Your biggest screw up (Score 0) 452

Everyone has a right to speak and think whatever they want. You don't like what someone has to say... then use your right to speak to say so and use your right to think to judge them. But you don't censor them.

No one can censor your thoughts, but free to say whatever you want? I don't think I have to use the "fire in a crowded theater" analogy. You already know that it's not true, or possible, or even reasonable. You can say what you like, I guess, on the "internet," but that doesn't mean you can say whatever you want on someone else's site. The owner of the site can put whatever restrictions they want, by our definition of ownership in this case. The concept that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want speaks of simple ignorance of the norms of society.

Comment Not Really (Score 1) 434

Of course they can ignore it. Google is a vendor providing a part to the phone manufacturers, just like the company that makes the plastic case. Consumers buy their phone from the manufacturer or the service provider, so they are responsible for the customer's experience, not Google.

This is not an expensive computer. Phones are relatively inexpensive, and people just end up buying a new one every year or two anyway if they want the latest doodads. If people are still using the old phone with old versions of Android software, then they must be happy with it. Believe it or not a lot of people really do use their phone just for making phone calls.

Time is an illusion perpetrated by the manufacturers of space.