Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Efficiency (Score 1) 133

> Electrically-powered synthesis of methane from H2O and CO2 already exists, and the process of forming longer hydrocarbons from methane do, too.

Yep. I think we ought to focus more of our research dollars on making this cheaper.

If we start having more solar/wind than we know what to do with, using excess capacity to build up hydrocarbons is theoretically a great way to store the energy that would play nicely with our existing infrastructure, and would suck carbon out out of the atmosphere (though it'd get cycled back out) rather than from the earth's crust.

Comment: Re:Libertarian nirvana (Score 4, Insightful) 534

Libertarians should love this

What's your next guess, asshole?

Libertarians are against the initiation of violence, whether the perps are government thugs or quasi-private organizations like this. You can shove your smug little digs right back up the hole it came from.

-jcr

Comment: Re:Anyone who knows street parking in San Francisc (Score 1) 404

by ShakaUVM (#47320319) Attached to: San Francisco Bans Parking Spot Auctioning App

>Not "right" by the OP's definition, no. Even in 1906 they could not have reasonably predicted the conditions of 2014.

They wanted to widen and straighten the streets. This would have made a pretty significant impact on the road conditions in SF, even today.

Could you imagine what London would be like today if they didn't remodel a bit after 1666?

Comment: Re:Anyone who knows street parking in San Francisc (Score 1) 404

by ShakaUVM (#47313325) Attached to: San Francisco Bans Parking Spot Auctioning App

>Yes - damn the city planners of the 1870's for not anticipating the conditions of 2014.

I know, right? It's not like all of San Francisco ever got hit by a massive earthquake and fire or something.

Actually, they did have their chance to rebuild the city right - they knew their layout was shit and considered it - the trouble was figuring out how property rights would work when you moved all of the lots around was too much of a nightmare for the city, especially given that they'd lost all their records in the fire. So they were basically forced to allow everyone to rebuild right where they were before, using a city layout that would make old European cities cry from dysfunction.

Comment: Re:Awesome! (Score 1) 276

by ShakaUVM (#47313303) Attached to: Federal Judge Rules US No-fly List Violates Constitution

>I don't understand completely how this all has gone so far so fast. Just 15 years ago, this all would have been unthinkable.

The FISA court has been around a lot longer than 15 years. It was founded in 1978, and has been a civil rights issue for those of us paying attention for a long time now.

The American legal system, as you say, is based on being able to confront your accuser in a criminal case (6th Amendment), to examine evidence held against you, and that trials in abstentia are a violation of our natural rights.

So yeah, Pope, I agree with you for once.

Comment: Re:See even Microsoft thinks MacBook Airs rule! (Score 1) 365

>When the simplest functions require you to go to the internet to find out how to do them. My virgin W8 experience wasdoing a websearch on how to shutdown, and there were lots of hits. If we have problems trying to figure how to shut the computer down, there is something drastically wrong.

Yeah, that was my first experience as well. A waitress at a local Denny's had a brand new W8 laptop, and she was passing it around the Fresno Chess Club trying to get someone how to shut it down. Not one could do it. So she brought it over to me. I laughed at them a bit, and then realized I couldn't find the damn shutdown option either.

When you bury a very common operation under an invisible menu (the charms bar) under a nonsensical choice (Power Options) you have a contender for Worst UI of the Decade.

Comment: Re:Headline is backwards (Score 1) 109

by ShakaUVM (#47303485) Attached to: Supreme Court Upholds Most EPA Rules On Greenhouse Gases

> SCOTUS actually ruled pretty much the opposite: it said -- in so many words -- that the EPA can NOT write its own rules contrary to the laws explicitly laid down by Congress.

Yeah. I listened to the live oral arguments for this case, because I'm a nerd I guess, and the justices were very, very skeptical of the EPA's position on the matter. They fully understood that maybe 250 tons of CO2 isn't as bad as 250 tons of cyanide or whatever, but they really didn't want to go down the road of letting the EPA write their own law and then regulate it.

What SCOTUS really wants done is for congress to come in and adjust the pollution threshold from 250 to 10,000 tons on CO2, and they don't seem opposed to the notion of regulating CO2 entirely as a 'pollutant' (something I take a bit of issue with, as pretty much anything could be called a pollutant in that case if you have enough of it), but given the dysfunction of Congress, it'll probably never happen.

Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.

Working...