Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Usable in Australia (Score 1, Informative) 311

by TapeCutter (#49608881) Attached to: Tesla's Household Battery: Costs, Prices, and Tradeoffs

Depending on where the units were placed, it's quite possible that the operating temperature would exceed 43 degrees even if the ambient temperature was below that.

Yes, official temperature readings measure the air temperature and are always taken in the shade. When the weatherman says the temp is 43deg, it's more like 53deg in direct sunlight.

Comment: Close enough to free (Score 1) 125

by TapeCutter (#49603625) Attached to: Should Developers Still Pay For Game Engines?
All of these engine releases of late seem to have very reasonable terms. From the Unreal Engine 4 FAQ

How much do I have to pay for Unreal Engine 4?
UE4 is free to use, with a 5% royalty on gross product revenue after the first $3,000 per game per calendar quarter from commercial products. Read the EULA FAQ for more details.
I’m a consultant. Do I owe royalties on consulting fees?
No.

I think the reason for this is they all want to become the defacto-standard, they are all very keen to create a developer community around their toolset. Personally I like the UE4 / PhysX sales model since you don't pay until you make money from it. I'm interested in playing with these engines as a hobby but have no interest in writing a commercial game, If I was serious about developing and selling games, the license fees for any of the popular engines would be a very minor concern, it's a great example of a capitalist "win-win".

Selling model content to use in these engines is where the money is for individual devs/artists, kind of like the people who sold shovels during the gold rush. IIRC UE4 has some sort of public marketplace where you can release/sell models you have created.

Comment: Re:PS (Score 1) 353

I think you're saying the same thing with different words. Yes the target is the EPA, and the method employed is to put (inconvenient) Science on a short leash.

I have no idea if the claims in the article are accurate or not

I suspect the article is full of half-truths, for example, legal aid for nutjobs to sue the government is nothing new, nor are the funds limited to green groups.

Comment: unexamined prejudice (Score 3, Insightful) 300

Men are constantly portrayed in both advertising and entertainment as buffoons and simpletons when they are anywhere near the kitchen, the kids, or the laundry. Everyone laughs when a man is kicked in the balls by a woman in a TV show/commercial. Where's the fake outrage about that violent sexisim in the name of humour?

I strongly suspect the paper was a "joke", and the reviewer was sarcastically reflecting the paper's bias back at the authors.

Comment: PS (Score 5, Insightful) 353

Shouldn't we want them to be basing policy on publicly available data?

This is an excellent example of how well-crafted political propaganda works. The act of introducing the bill implies the EPA are not already basing policy on publicly available data, opposing the bill implies you want to hide something from the public. Even if the bill fails to pass, it has already succeeded as a propaganda piece.

Make no mistake, this is a far-right attempt to put Science on a short leash.

Comment: Senator Snowball Inhofe.. (Score 1, Insightful) 353

..is as usual relying on the ignorance of the public. For example one of the long time complaints about the "hockey stick" from the deniers in the US senate was that a small portion of the raw data could not be published due to (default) copyright terms imposed by the french and a couple of other geographically small nations. The data was available but you had to go to the French government and wait six months to get it. There are lots of other cases where data is collected from industry and individuals where those supplying the data do not want the raw data published for legal, commercial, or personal reasons. The basic rule of research is you take what data you can get and publish what you are allowed to by those who supply it.

A more useful law would be to force anti-science "charities" such as the heartland institute to reveal their accounts to the public, if the IPCC and EPA can do it why can't a tax exempt no-think tank do the same?

Comment: Re:EPA has exceeded safe limits, needs curbing (Score 3, Insightful) 353

Pollutant = A resource in the wrong place, as in "do not pollute my scotch with water". The evidence of harm caused by 1/2 trillion tons of CO2 in the wrong place may not be clear to you, but it is to almost everyone who has actually looked at it with a scientific eye. AFAICT the senate republicans think an appropriate mission for the EPA is to STFU and mow the whitehouse lawn.

Money is the root of all wealth.

Working...