Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Open source SCO (Score 1) 66

Why? Just to make the people responsible for the fiasco the lawyers and executives of the company SCO weep.

Why? They all got their paycheck and moved on. The investors lost some money. Darl McBride is now the CEO of ShoutTV. I'm never going to work there.

I do remember when SCO was a respectable member of the Linux community, and Caldera was seen as a reasonable distro alternative. Suse was in there, too.

Comment Re:One down. (Score 1) 332

That explains why Kasich hasn't gotten as much support as I would have expected.
Vote for Hillary because Bill seemed ok, so she'll probably be kind of like him.

Comment Re:Already??? (Score 1) 332

Previously, I supported Cruz, but his answer in the debate on his OPPOSITION to torture and his 'targeted' carpetbombing (an oxymoron) turned me against him.

To be fair, they were accurate answers in a lawyerly sort of way.

Comment Re:You might be right, I was/am split. 3-way, he w (Score 1) 332

Except for Rubio's stance on domestic surveillance, I could easily vote either Rubio

I feel like the most recent debate did a good job revealing Rubio for who he is......a smooth campaigner with little actual experience. All the governors on the stage managed to have good, substance filled answers to various questions, but his didn't seem to have as much clarity behind them.

For example, here are the things people said (paraphrased):

Kasich - we need to help people with heroin addictions, and here is my plan to do it
Christy - we need to help people with heroin addictions, here is my plan, and I know it works because it worked in New Jersey.
Bush - we need to give more power to the states, and we're going to shift funding for schools, highways, and healthcare to the states.
Rubio - we shouldn't be focused on the rich, we should be focused on making more millionaires.

Can you see the difference? While Rubio's idea sounds great and is a fine philosophy, there isn't an obvious way to achieve it, and he didn't present a plan to do so. He's still at the philosophy stage, whereas the other three were at the practical implementation stage.

And Trump was just there putting on a show. Rhetoric FTW.

Comment Re:One down. (Score 1) 332

Trump is winning out because the saner vote is still split.

Maybe, but that assumes the other 60% is 'sane.' Some of those votes are guaranteed to go to Trump.

Lately I've started looking at Kasich as a reasonable alternative, and because he's more competent than Trump et al, but I don't think competency matters to most of the electorate.

I really wish it did, but the reality right now is that charisma matters more than competence, and Trump has it in spades, so he will win (which unfortunately means we'll have to listen to him for the next four years).

Comment Re:So what should we do? (Score 1) 520

I don't find three pedals confusing either, and if I had a lift or even a slab I would probably drop the money to put a six speed into my Audi in lieu of the five speed slushbox when I liquidate my 300SD. I'm not doing that job in the dirt. The point remains, though; there was no good reason for them not to use pushbuttons.

Also, I'd still rather have a DCT than any of this stuff, and they don't work without computer control either

Comment Re:Let's get real (Score 1) 205

The DPRK is once again being used for fear mongering. Fear mongering is the main reason why nobody has gone to war to end the regime.

This is a poor analysis. The DPRK would quickly lose any conventional war with the US/SK, but they are much stronger than Iraq, and have the ability to inflict massive casualties. Within the first hour of war, literally millions of people would be killed in Seoul, as it is within artillery range of the DMZ. And does the North Korean government know this? Absolutely, and they have thousands of bunkers right along the border, ready to rain death on Seoul.

That is not a situation anybody wants, including you.

Comment Re:Game over. You lost. (Score 1) 529

You're dumb as a brick. Do you really think only people who are "on your side" post good articles? Or is it only people on the other side? Clearly that is what your original post suggested.

And you're wrong. People who are skeptics also refer to the IPCC report. As I said earlier, there are morons who don't understand the science on both sides, who have merely chosen a side, and then only see good on their side, and bad on the other side. That is clearly you.

Comment Re:green? (Score 1) 224

But things like coal, oil, natural gas come from underground.

Most mining is now strip mining, so anything that has to be mined automatically loses. All three of these are also sequestered carbon; when we produce them, and then burn them, we cause ourselves problems related to CO2 release. Natural Gas production is now predicated upon fracking (we otherwise have already hit peak natgas, in terms of just getting it out of the ground as opposed to making it) which has its own severe problems, not least being based on injecting refinery wastes into the ground instead of disposing of them properly. Oil spills are an ongoing rather than regular occurrence; there is basically no time that there is not a serious oil spill going on somewhere in the world. Burning coal puts nuclear material into the atmosphere, including tons of fissile uranium per year.

The environmental cost of solar, especially non-PV systems or modern PV systems which use ever-vanishing quantities of rare earths or even organic materials, is minuscule compared to any fossil fuel.

Comment Re:6178 acres? (Score 1) 224

Wow, you need to disturb a lot of habitat to make that happen. Even in the desert.

The sand fleas will be crushed. No, literally, they will be crushed. Seriously, desert is notable for hosting minimal quantities of biomass. Sure, we could wipe out some inconsequential species. That would even be sad. But I think most of us would trade some obscure lizards and bugs for clean power... which has serious positive ramifications for protecting habitat for many more species.

Ideally we'd mandate if not PV installs then at least proper solar siting for all new construction worldwide, which would lend itself to more distributed solar projects. It's only maybe 15% of the roofs even in California for example which are suitable sites for solar panels because of all the various factors involved. Then there would be less demand for centralized solar. We need more distributed generation anyway.

Slashdot Top Deals

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. - Voltaire

Working...