Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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:Alternate Bank of Canada Press Release (Score 1) 221

by Socguy (#49185229) Attached to: <em>Star Trek</em> Fans Told To Stop "Spocking" Canadian $5 Bill
I have personally experienced Telus, a major phone company in Canada, refusing cash payments of their bills due to the cost of handling the money. Also pennies (before rounding was introduced) were only valid currency up to about $2 here in Canada. I have no idea about the other coins but it wouldn't surprise me if there were similar regulations around them.

Comment: Re:Net metering is little more than theft (Score 1) 372

by Socguy (#49129923) Attached to: The Groups Behind Making Distributed Solar Power Harder To Adopt
Utility companies can raise their prices if they wish. Utility companies had the option to be innovative and pursue solar/wind lease agreements where they would own this generation capacity and it's resale would be more profitable. They chose to stick with the traditional model. This was their choice.

Comment: Re:Net metering is unstustainable (Score 0) 372

by Socguy (#49129801) Attached to: The Groups Behind Making Distributed Solar Power Harder To Adopt
In your model the power bill has 2 components: generation and delivery. You feel that it's fair for the customer to pay both. In the scenario where the homeowner is generating the power, it is the utility that is the customer therefore according to your logic it should be the utility that pays for the delivery of that power. If the homeowner pays delivery charges on the power they use, so too should the utility company on the power they use. Considering the power generation and consumption patterns of a typical home, perhaps the utility companies are not paying the homeowner enough delivery on the power generated...

Comment: Re:Realistic (Score 1) 372

by Socguy (#49129647) Attached to: The Groups Behind Making Distributed Solar Power Harder To Adopt
As the amount of variable supply power grows so to does the demand for storage of that power. The market will force utilities to adapt or die through deploying grid storage. The scenario you speak of is still decades away and we have the technology today to make this work. It will only get more cost effective as time goes by.

Comment: Re: WTF (Score 5, Insightful) 297

by Socguy (#49005851) Attached to: Canadian Climate Scientist Wins Defamation Suit Against National Post

How can we have an open debate when one side censors the other, through lawsuits, censorship, or even making discussion outright illegal (see Holocaust denial)?

How can you have an open debate when one side uses lies and personal attacks instead of facts?

It doesn't matter how ridiculously wrong the other side is. Doesn't matter if they are NAMBLA, Neo-Nazis, ISIS, whoever. Let them speak their mind and let the people figure out that their arguments are largely full of shit and let the people reject them on merit. Or, if they choose to, accept them.

It DOES matter how ridiculously wrong one side is when their goal is not to win a debate but to DELAY ACTION. By manufacturing controversy where there is none, one side wins.

Comment: Re:The Canadian arm of the business is stil operat (Score 1) 294

by Socguy (#48995483) Attached to: Radioshack Declares Bankruptcy
I don't think they're surviving any better up here. I have not found a reason to purchase anything from one of their stores for a decade now. At one point they had hard to find components. Now they have what exactly? A small quantity of stuff that can be purchased cheaper elsewhere...

Comment: Re:Huh? (Score 1) 134

by Socguy (#48787365) Attached to: For the First Time In 3 Years, Investments In Renewable Energy Increased
There is one element of oil creation that you forgot: A mechanism to trap the Oil. Otherwise after the hydrocarbon is created it disperses. Finding the trapping mechanism at whatever depth is more important that the age of the oil.

In traditional reserves this trapping mechanism has been a a limestone dome or some such but it doesn't have to be. Technology is now allowing us to exploit other trapping mechanisms (such as shale and sand). This means that we can exploit previously untouchable deposits. If the price of oil rises again, the same thing will happen and we will be awash with 'new' oil. The really scary part of all this is that we are now starting to transition to unconventionals, which are often trapped in different ways, such as methalhydrates frozen in the sea floor. This is a slow motion disaster for the planet as the amount of carbon trapped in these formations dwarfs anything we previously could have exploited.

What does this mean for peak oil? What does peak oil even mean? Does it mean peak conventional production? If so, we may already be there. Does it mean peak hydrocarbon production? In that case we are nowhere near how much we could dig up....

Comment: Re:Established science CANNOT BE QUESTIONED! (Score 1) 719

by Socguy (#48636677) Attached to: Skeptics Would Like Media To Stop Calling Science Deniers 'Skeptics'
I'm with you man! We need to keep questioning all these fundamentally unsound 'scientific' theories. I mean take Newton and his THEORY of gravity... Call me a denier all you want. I'm not denying the "Science" part of this (Things fall). I am denying the predictive hyperbole from the likes of Issac Newton, who keeps making ridiculous claims, while having a huge gravity footprint (apple diet not withstanding).

+ - Climate Deal Would Commit Every Nation to Limiting Emissions->

Submitted by mdsolar
mdsolar (1045926) writes "Negotiators from around the globe reached a climate change agreement early Sunday that would, for the first time in history, commit every nation to reducing its rate of greenhouse gas emissions — yet would still fall far short of what is needed to stave off the dangerous and costly early impact of global warming.

The agreement reached by delegates from 196 countries establishes a framework for a climate change accord to be signed by world leaders in Paris next year. While United Nations officials had been scheduled to release the plan on Friday at noon, longstanding divisions between rich and poor countries kept them wrangling through Friday and Saturday nights to early Sunday.

The agreement requires every nation to put forward, over the next six months, a detailed domestic policy plan to limit its emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases from burning coal, gas and oil. Those plans, which would be published on a United Nations website, would form the basis of the accord to be signed next December and enacted by 2020."

Link to Original Source

No line available at 300 baud.