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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Realism (Score 1) 372

Because the car manufacturers don't like it. They have stalled the efforts (at least here in Europe) to have realistic test scenario's for many years: 'not objective' 'too expensive' etc.

Now Europe has said it will push formward this legilation which has been ready for years. It clearly wants to make use of the momentum while the car industry is on the defence...

Comment Re:Maybe (Score 1) 372

Are you in the car industry? I'm sure they fully agree with you ;-)

I think may of those variations can be actually controlled without testing on a dynamo meter in a lab:
- Testing on a test track eliminates terrain, traffic and conditions of the car over time.
- Having a clear test scenario and test profile will elliminate the drivers habits and if you drive one way and then the other the wind effects should be minimal.

Then you only need to add a maximum wind speed and a clear day and maximum and miminum temperatures to the testing requirements and you're pretty much set. Only the car manufactures won't like it of course. Especially if the independent tester picks the car at random from the production line...

Comment Re:Fukushima factoid (Score 1) 139

Coal and Nuclear are as bad as each other but for different reasons. Nuclear kills people for subsequent decades as the radioactive effluents make their way through our water and food supply, it also reduces the birth rate because pregnancies fail to come to full term. The key thing is it happens very slowly and the majority of effects are still years away as opposed to coal whose effects are almost instantaneous in comparison.

"radioactive effluents"? You do realize that nuclear reactors don't release any radioactivity under normal operating conditions? Major releases are on the order of once a decade or more, and that's with our aging GenII reactors, world wide. GenIII would be a lot safer.

Also, citation on the birth rates. Citation on "majority of effects" being still years away - if anything we should be recovering from the effects of post WWII above ground nuclear bomb tests.

I would think the GP refers to the effluents released in an nuclear accident, no?

From my understanding of this technology it's spent fuel product is 233 Thallium, IIRC, which is characterized by many daughter products with short half lives. I'm not saying it isn't better reactor technology however it would seem the central issue of current reactor technology, the long term storage of spent fuel products, is an issue for thorium reactor technology as well.

Question, do you know what "short half lives" amounts to? It means that the material in question is much more radioactive - but that means it also decays in radioactivity much faster. Something with a half-life of 10 days will be virtually entirely gone within a year. Something with a half-life in the decades will still be churning a century from now, but it's initially safer to be around.(Safer being a relative quality).

But he said: daugther products with short half life. That implies (I think) that it decays (slowly over years and years) into short lived, highly radioactive daugther products. Which implies (again: I think) a fairly high level of radiation over a long period of time.

Until we have effective, geologically stable and appropriate spent fuel containment facilities then we will always have higher levels of risk with greater levels of impact as a result of accidents in the nuclear industry. For that reason it's important to reduce that level of risk and impact to the community regardless of what reactor technology is deployed.

Above ground caskets are working well. I figure that we'd be digging up anything we bury within a century to reprocess it anyways. Heck, let it sit in a cask for 40 years and so much of the 'hot' stuff has decayed that it should make reprocessing significantly cheaper.

Indeed. I tend to agree with you that storage under ground is pretty useless since you will have to monitor it systematically to check that the caskets are still ok. Only problem: no one wants that. The population in the area doesn't want a building containing highly radioactive products in their neighbourhood. And nuclear energy producers don't want the costs of constantly monitored storage. They are fixed on finding a container where they can put their waste in and a location where they can dump it. No monitoring, just cheap storage.

Comment Re:That's what Nokia, Moto, and Microsoft said (Score 1) 535

And this implies (for me) that Apple is likely NOT going to use traditional car building techniques which involves building a complete factory (Tela like).
Instead I think they will use cheaper low volume techniques (3D printing??) and only ramp them up if demand is high.

I saw a video recently of a 3D printing car manufacturing technique where a car chassis was build entirely with 3D printed parts. The body pannels do not have to be from steel, making them much cheaper to produce. And then there is still the drive train (which is at the hart of the research that Apple has to do anyway)

Comment Re:Of course the Air Force didn't adopt it (Score 2) 320

I don't understand your logic. A drone is at most a bomb truck and a observation platform. Not really suited for the type of missions of the A10: working closely with people on the ground, often within visual range responding quickly and with very high precision.

Would you like a drone to drop a precision laser guided bomb from 10 000 ft on a target that's less than 1 km from where you're standing?? Or would you rather have an A10 flying over low and slow and take out the target with it's gun?

Logically the F-35 should be the one that is most likely to be replaced by a drone. Since it's manouverability is very low and all supporters of the plane describe it as a 'communication platform' and 'not intended for close combat'. That's something that a drone could easily do.

Comment Re:Works both ways (Score 1) 737

> How does any of this behavior differ in any way from any other organized crime ring?

It's not a crime to be wrong.

It's not about being wrong. The scientific communitiy is perfectly clear about global warming. It's about clouding the matter on purpose to protect you interests.

Think about cigarettes: in the 90's everyone 'knew' that they were harmfull. Still, large warnings about the dangers of smoking were systematically blocked since the tobacco industry said 'there is no proof'. They were conviced because they too clouded the public option on purpose by spreading false information on the scientific consensus.
And not because they were wrong (their own investigation had shown years before exactly what the dangers were - just like the Exxon study in a recent /. article showed that the Oil companies are too well aware of the consequences).

Comment Wrong strategy? Not really (Score 1) 324

Just like anybody else (I think) I am often amazed at how much money people are spending (again and again) on apple devices and particularly iPhones. And just like anybody else I often wonder how long this can go on.
So, I'm convinced that somewhere in the future apple will either make some huge mistake or, alternatively, find their formula working less and less well for them because (like any market leader is bound to do) they keep on hammering on the same nail, not realizing the world has changed meanwhile.

That being said: I don't think this is the big stragegic mistake, nor do I think it is the start of their downfall...

Comment Re:oops (Score 1) 440

I just looked at the wikipedia article about the Macintosh link and it confirms what I remember from a documentary about the dawn of personal computer: the apple Macintosh was selling well (280 000 in the first year, outselling all other computers). It's just that Steve Jobs' expectations were so much higher still. And he had transferred these expectetions onto the potential buyers (business people) who were, initially, underwhelmed.

That Woz preferred the Lisa is no big misery. The Lisa was technically superior. Just unsellable. And if Jobs had continued on the Lisa project he would have left Woz alone on the Macintosh. As it was Jobs (in his typically 'I'm god' style) simply took his project over while he was away.

Never say you know a man until you have divided an inheritance with him.