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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Are you armed? (Score 1) 562

How can you possibly think a bow and arrows will supply you with more shots for the equivalent volume. Even if you never restocked, 15 pounds of ammo would last you a long, long time. You can probably carry a maximum of 50 arrows on you, and that sounds like a massive pain in the ass! Good luck crafting your own arrows and actually hitting something with them! Or getting close enough to hit something with your crappy arrows. I'll stick to 20th century technology.

Good luck hunting birds without bird shot.

A bow and arrows is what you turn to when your 500 rounds of ammo has finally run out 3 years later.

Comment Re:Store in a water tower (Score 1) 506

Energy storage does add a cost, but it's not prohibitive. It's generally a couple cents per kilowatt hour, give or take.

You strongly need a citation there. The crux of the argument about energy storage is cost. Many energy storage systems have long term replacement requirements. In the case of batteries, they will on average need replacing every 7 years. Batteries are expensive. The battery buffer system just doesn't make economic sense in the long run. Hydro-turbines could potentially be cheap to maintain for 20 or more years, so I think you should clarify the type of energy storage system you are talking about.

Comment Re:Brilliant (Score 5, Informative) 264

The well casing is ruptured below the sea floor. If they cap it, oil will begin leaking below the surface. This will cause extensive erosion leading to the collapse of the blow out preventor. This erosion will continue and leakage rates will continue to increase until the whole oil field depressurizes. In other words: The very best anybody will ever do is to leave this pipe wide open. It will only get worse from here, and substantially faster if they do cap it. Our only hope is with other means to depressurize this (relief wells).

Comment Re:Meh. (Score 1) 240

The thing you don't understand that the chip is the failure point. The more chips you have, the more points of failure. Reduce the number of chips (and the hardware used to support them), and you can reduce possible failures considerably. In the case of getting rid of the GPU, it would probably bring close to a 20% reduction in the number of components. Are you really saying that a computer with 20% less components (and thus points of failure) is going to be less reliable than it's big brother of yesteryear?

Submission + - Why broadband in North America is NOT slow (theglobeandmail.com) 2

An anonymous reader writes: An article written in response to that study regarding how far behind the rest of the word the US and Canada are with regards to broadband internet. It basically tears it apart and shows why the US and Canada are actually far ahead of most of the european countries. It has a canadian slant, but is interesting!

Be careful when a loop exits to the same place from side and bottom.