Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Majority leaders home district (Score 1) 174

Yeah, but the processes to refine the stuff out is horrendous. They make oil refineries look like unspoiled wilderness in comparison.

Yeah, but we're already storing it, anyway. I might be nuts but from what I've seen if we were to take 10 or 15 square miles of land - totally insignificant when you look at the size of our country - and decide that it was going to be a nasty radioactive place but that we would work to keep it contained and do whatever we need there - seems like we could do it. But nobody wants that "in their back yard".

Comment: Re:Tax (Score 1) 525

by Trailer Trash (#48926045) Attached to: Apple Posts $18B Quarterly Profit, the Highest By Any Company, Ever

I thought I'd check, and in their 2014 annual accounts, Apple showed tax payable of $14 billion on a net profit of $40 billion. Unless this is just some totally fictitious accounting entry, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they don't pay any tax.

You apparently have no left-wing friends on facebook.

Comment: Re:Slave Labour is certainly profitable (Score 1) 525

by Trailer Trash (#48926037) Attached to: Apple Posts $18B Quarterly Profit, the Highest By Any Company, Ever

What electronic products do you use that are made in a country with decent labor laws? And what about your clothes and shoes?

Are you setting a positive example for this world like you promised?

This reminds me of a lot of Christian friends who say how great it is that Chick-Fil-A is closed on Sunday and that's so Christian of them and all that. These same people usually point this out while eating in another restaurant on Sunday.

Comment: Re:Armchair engineering at its finest (Score 1) 247

by Trailer Trash (#48925885) Attached to: Engineers Develop 'Ultrarope' For World's Highest Elevator

I'm probably going to lose some karma for this...

I, too, could come with a half-dozen answers that would be "far superior" to what 100+ years of the finest minds in the industry could come up with. But in reality, I really, seriously doubt that my designs would hold up because there's a *reason* that things are done the way they are.

And, yet, some guy named Elon Musk - who never worked at Ford, GM, Honda, the guy's a nobody - is the one who's making all the money in electric cars right now. Why?

Now and then industries that have been around for 100 years get so stuck in doing things the same way and simply scaling it can't get over the hump where you have to say "we can't scale this way of doing it, we have to start from scratch". They also have a huge patent catalog related to their current way of doing things, a huge number of engineers who know this method inside out, etc. There's considerable inertia to overcome, and few companies overcome it.

That's why when things change it's often the newcomers who do it.

Here's another one - Vizio. Ever heard of them 15 years ago? They never made a CRT-based television. The founders came from a monitor manufacturer and decided to start making TVs based on LCD technology. They went straight to Sam's and Costco to sell them. They pretty much own that market now.

Meanwhile, where's Westinghouse? Or RCA? They turned out a ton of tubes back in the day, but they're gone. Nobody wants a freaking X-ray generator in their house now.

Honestly, I think a shakeup like this is long overdue in the elevator business. You say there are so many moving parts to your caterpillar drive - do you have any idea of how many moving parts are in a standard elevator. Your idea cuts the moving parts down to perhaps 1/10th of what there is now. Getting rid of counterweights is a huge deal. You can even keep the counterweight and change the traction to your idea and there are still far fewer moving parts.

Elevators were first made when a tall building was 10 stories. The idea that a radical overhaul in design isn't needed for buildings that are 20 times that tall is laughable.

So, yes, I think you're absolutely wrong. An outsider is almost certainly what is needed to scale elevators up like this.

Comment: Re:Not sure it's a good job choice (Score 1) 327

They're already past the "make things worse" stage. That's what austerity brought.

No, austerity didn't bring it. If anything, trying to spend within your limited means will postpone making things worse. Do it long enough and things might even get better.

But borrowing and spending isn't going to make it better, even if they can find someone from whom to borrow.

Comment: Re:This doesn't sound... sound (Score 1) 327

Leftist borrowing and spending? As opposed to the Right's strategy, which is to borrow much more and give it to your rich business partners?

I don't know how folks like you can live in the real world and parrot these lines over and over again with nothing to show for it. When the left "borrows and spends", the "spending" side all goes to rich business partners. Every single time.

Why do you think that the "recovery" in the US has gone mostly to the top 10%? What do you think about Solyndra? Geeze. Get out of the partisan gutter and join us here in the real world.

Comment: Re:Boiled at 90C? (Score 1) 155

It's a pretty central fact to cooking.

Okay. How does the fact that water boils at 100C help you when you cook? Let me state this another way. Imagine that the inventor of the Celsius scale arbitrarily decided that the boiling point of water would be 1000C. What would you do differently when cooking?

In case you're scratching your head trying to figure out my awesome brain-bender the answer is "nothing".

If water boiled at 385 Kelvin, we'd have made 100C = 385K.

Okay. So? All arbitrary numbers. Like 32 and 212.

Comment: Re:Boiled at 90C? (Score 1) 155

Celsius is only arbitrary if you ignore the fact that it's anchored to two immediately useful temperature for most people in most places.

Sigh. Please read my post repeatedly until you get it. I never said that "0" and "100" celsius aren't "useful", just that it's entirely arbitrary. Also note that it won't work in "most places" - it only works at sea level at normal atmospheric pressure for pure water. Anything other than that is slightly off.

Remembers the freezing point and boiling point of water in Kelvin would suck just as much as it does in Fahrenheit. When I've doing physics calculations, I'll use Kelvin, where it's the logical unit leading to the simplest form of equation.

Which again supports my point. For real world use there's little difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit for people who use them. That celsius is based on properties of one chemical compound (out of millions of compounds) really doesn't make it more useful for anything. I mean, if you're at sea level with normal atmospheric pressure and you're boiling a pot of distilled water then you can safely say that it's 100 degrees Celsius. What, exactly, does that gain the normal person? Nothing more than saying it's 212F. Yes, 100 is a pretty and round number but in the real world it is, again, not relevant.

Comment: Re:Boiled at 90C? (Score 3, Insightful) 155

0 is the freezing point and 100 is the boiling point at normal pressure. How is that arbitrary?

LOL. Let me help you:

1. the freezing point (arbitrary but easily observable state)
2. of pure water with no dissolved substances (arbitrary but common chemical compound)
3. at sea level (arbitrary but easily located place)
4. at normal atmospheric pressure
5. on earth (arbitrary but very convenient location)
6. is 0 degrees (arbitrary value which kind of makes sense until you realize that you can still get colder)
7. and the boiling point of water at sea level on earth at normal atmospheric pressure (previous comments still apply)
8. is 100 degrees (arbitrary number chosen for convenience of the units - "10" would be too course grained and "1000" would be too fine grained)

So, yes, the celsius scale is arbitrary, the Fahrenheit only slightly more so. At least the celsius scale can be kind of reproduced in a pinch if you're at sea level and normal pressure and you have water and the ability to freeze and heat it. But, then, if you have all that you can reproduce the Fahrenheit scale, too.

For an idea of a less arbitrary scale look at the Kelvin scale. On it, "0" is the absolute lowest temperature where matter has absolutely no heat content. Of course the scale is the same as celsius so it still ends up being arbitrary in scale, which *any* temperature scale will be. But "0" being "absolute 0" is what sets it apart.

Comment: Re:Boiled at 90C? (Score 1) 155

Is their lab at the bottom of death valley or are they using a pressure cooker?
Every time C vs F comes up, the C fans invariably point to C being vastly superior mainly because 100 C is water's boiling point.

"Boiling an egg" really means "heating it in hot water to cause the yolk and albumen to solidify". That can be done at a temperature far below the boiling point of water. This is good because in the summer local news stations can show how hot it is outside because you can "fry an egg on the sidewalk!" complete with a demonstration.

If I remember correctly 120F is the temperature needed. I used to make a custard ice cream which included a dozen uncooked egg yolks that couldn't be congealed. In order to accomplish this safely they had to be heated in a double boiler setup to around 105F and held there for 10 minutes which was supposed to be enough to kill the nasty bacteria that might be in there. It was a bit of a trick because if it got much hotter the yolks would congeal and become unusable.

Comment: Re:Good (Score 2) 392

This is exactly what I came here to say, too. It's easy for someone to sit in their office in DC or wherever and eavesdrop on the entire internet if traffic is unencrypted, so there's an incentive to simply be lazy and collect as much as possible. When they have to physically visit a person's home, office, whatever in order to eavesdrop - this is GOOD. Now there's an incentive to actually *think* and make sure you're doing the right thing before investing the resources needed to eavesdrop.

Comment: Re:Yay!! (Score 1) 420

by Trailer Trash (#48886771) Attached to: Disney Turned Down George Lucas's Star Wars Scripts

Good on Disney. Lucas may be ok at imagining a story...

That's part of the problem: "a story". I watched 4, 5, 6, and 1. 1 was bad enough that I haven't bothered to seek out 2 and 3.

I would note that in 4, 6, and 1 the entire plot was "attack the single point of failure on the enemy ship/base for the win".

Friction is a drag.

Working...