Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:headline is misleading (Score 5, Insightful) 390 390

The headline is sufficient for those who do not understand how the power grid works, and anyone who knows how the power grid works would not be misled by the headline.

Even though my bill says "100% wind" on it, and somewhere out there are windmill(s) generating as much electricity as my home consumes, the actual power consumed in my house might just as easily come from the coal plants up the highway. It's all on the same grid.

If you understand that, then it's obvious that "Power Every US Home With Renewables" means "Generate As Much Renewable Energy As All Homes Consume". What appears on the bills of those homeowners is irrelevant.

Comment Re:Privacy (Score 4, Informative) 246 246

I went in to Facebook knowing it was using my real name and all my posts were public. I self-censor as appropriate given that limitation.

Google started as a variety of unrelated anonymous and pseudonymous services that I already used when they decided to link them all together and tack on a real-name mandate. No thanks.

Comment Re: Food Allergies (Score 2) 190 190

One study I read showed kids that grow up around farm animals tend to have healthier immune systems, which is one reason we keep chickens, let our daughter play in the backyard near them, and also feed her their eggs. Local honey too can be useful, but only after the kid is old enough to balance the risk of listeria. (At least, that's what we decided.)

Comment Re: Food Allergies (Score 1) 190 190

My wife ate peanuts while pregnant, peanut butter in the baby's first year while nursing, and we introduced her to toast with a little peanut butter at about 10 months. Giving her body no introduction to something didn't make any more sense than flooding immune system with something, and after a study came out showing that light doses of peanuts over time could reduce or eliminate the allergy in some kids who expressed it, I felt there was enough science backing what felt right to me to do it.

Comment Re: Screws with users (Score 1) 319 319

If something changes from a right-click to a left-double-click, or from a launch button to buried in the start menu, that most definitely is a UI change. And the hazard indicator on cars I've owned has changed from a slider on the steering column, to a toggle push button on the steering column, to a single-press button in the center of the dash.

And "changing the location of something is not a UI change" is just plain wrong when talking about cars. Move the gas pedal to the steering column and you've made a far bigger change to using a car that anything Windows has done in 20 years to using a computer.

Comment Re:Faa rules for RC planes (Score 1) 1176 1176

The thing that actually does make a drone a drone is the presence of a camera and the ability to operate out of line of sight. Saying that you can't basically says you can't fly drones, which probably wouldn't work because if drones were a crime then only criminals would have drones or something like that.

(I think half the public and half the laws already confuse "drone" with "rc plane", where rc planes are now being called drones even when operated within line of sight. So the same FAA rule that banned drones would probably end up getting RC pilots arrested.)

Comment Re:I agree with the shooter (Score 1) 1176 1176

Fortunately there are laws and court rulings about this, and they define how low you can be without trespassing. The FAA considers anything above 500 feet to be navigable space, and a previous SCOTUS ruling allowed trespassing charges against a paraglider at 83 feet, so the limit is probably somewhere in that area. If he was able to shoot the drone down from the sky, it was most certainly below 83 feet. And of course airplanes and Google Earth examples are silly and meaningless.

Comment Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money (Score 1) 571 571

The tail pound from your mine leaked and now my farm land is useless. I should be able to sue the coal company for the economic value of my land and income it could have generated for my family for the next 10 generations and if the coal company goes bankrupt I should be able to collect from the share holders in proportion to the remaining liability and stock they own.

What about the share holders who sold out before the leak was discovered? What if the owner died and the money was passed on to heirs? What about the ones that moved to another country? Let's say the leaking pond contaminated your drinking water, and coincidentally two of your children have mental development disorders, which of course you can never prove came from that leak? How much cash is worth that?

Comment Re:Or let us keep our hard-earned money (Score 4, Insightful) 571 571

So we think, now, 30 years after the fact, that the large amount of lead being released into the air from the automotive industry was responsible for the drastic increases in violent crime in the 1960s and 1970s.

Even supposing we hadn't banned leaded gasoline, how exactly do you think the oil and gas industry would take to new efforts to tax their products today? Do you think consumers would enjoy it? Can we ever prove 100% that this was the cause? How many years back would we need to try to retroactively collect these taxes? Can we even legally do so? Just exactly how much do value do you assign to damaging a baby or young child's brain so that you can appropriate tax gasoline for the effect?

Now take everything I just said and apply it to carbon dioxide and global climate change and see how well it's working.

When applied to the commons - primarily the environment - unregulated capitalism is an absolute failure. Attempting to apply more market forces to it only works if your goal is to hasten the revolution that swings things too far in some other direction.

Comment Re: Future Shock (Score 1) 319 319

The fashion industry would like to respectfully disagree with you.

In all seriousness, apparently some change does matter. I read about a study (on phone and too lazy to find link) where heterosexual women were asked to decide which of a group of photographs of men were more "striking" or somesuch. When the group was almost all people with beards, those without we're deemed more striking. And vice versa.

So, if everyone does something one way, being different stands out. Not everyone is creative enough to find their own own way, but they can jump on the coat tails of the actual creative innovators. Eventually the whole market moves and "change" has happened for "change's sake", but it's roots are justified in human desire to appreciate the unique and innovative.*

* a desire that is not shared by all, and often misguided, admittedly.

Comment Re:Crash Mitigation (Score 1) 549 549

From the video, it looks like the Google car did leave some space in front of it. It should have realized that the person approaching from behind was not stopping fast enough and might rear end it, and, prior to impact, applied a quick burst of gas then brake to use up some of that buffer space. That would give the approaching driver additional space to stop.

Then again, when I do that, it's because I see the panic in the eyes of the driver approaching from behind, and I can also tell that he's trying to stop and just doesn't quite have enough space. It's been successful a few times. Were I to see that the approaching driver is way too fast and, for example, looking at his phone, I would assume he wasn't going to try to stop and me eating into my buffer space would just make it more likely my car would have front-end damage, too. I'd be better served trying to drive out of the way. Fortunately I've only been in this situation twice and the driver behind me both times decided to drive into the shoulder/ditch instead of rear end me.

Comment Re:Crash Mitigation (Score 1) 549 549

As shown in the video, the Google car both stopped short (leaving space for it to move up a few feet and brake again when it realized the driver behind wouldn't stop in time, giving the driver behind more space to stop) AND wasn't the first car at the light, so even if it used up its buffer space and was still shoved, it would neither be driving nor likely get shoved into the intersection.

"And do you think (fop that I am) that I could be the Scarlet Pumpernickel?" -- Looney Tunes, The Scarlet Pumpernickel (1950, Chuck Jones)