Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Cost of smartphone service (Score 1) 322

by drinkypoo (#47445987) Attached to: Predicting a Future Free of Dollar Bills

But then you have to pay hundreds of USD for an iPhone (or maybe one hundred for a compatible Android phone) and hundreds of USD per year to upgrade from voice-only cellular service to smartphone service. Or what am I missing?

That most people already have a smartphone.

The data plan issue is a bigger one, I think.

Comment: Re:Inside of cameras (Score 5, Informative) 148

by Animats (#47445151) Attached to: Scientists Have Developed a Material So Dark That You Can't See It

I didn't research so forgive my ignorance

It gets this property from its fine surface structure, which is a forest of tubes. Incoming light has to be reflected many times before it gets back out, so a black material is effectively made even less reflective. It's the optical-scale version of the pointed absorbers used in anechoic chambers.

It probably is not going to retain its blackness when exposed to water, dirt, or wear. Superhydrophobic coatings such as Never Wet have the same problem - they work because they're composed of tiny points, so droplets of liquid don't have a surface they can grab. But after some wear, the effect stops working. (See any of the many "NeverWet fails" videos on YouTube.)

This is likely to be great for protected environments, such as inside optical systems. It should be useful for optical sensors in space, too. But it's probably an inherently fragile surface. That limits its uses. (The "stronger than steel" probably refers to the individual carbon nanotubes, not the bulk material.)

This s a problem with a lot of surface chemistry stuff touted as "nanomaterials". They have interesting surface properties, but the surfaces are fragile, because they're some very thin surface layer with an unusual structure. If you protect that structure with some coating, you lose the effect.

Comment: Re:Does anyone oppose this? (Score 1) 109

by drinkypoo (#47444311) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade

Since when have protective tariffs been "efficient"?

If we required accounting of emissions, and not simply of currency units, then there would be no need for tariffs to address the issue of the hidden environmental costs. They can eventually be translated into economic costs, but they also affect quality of life — you can assign economic costs to that as well, but you'll hardly tell the whole story.

When you buy goods made somewhere with inadequate pollution controls, many others have to pay part of your bill. My only problem with the whole idea is that any tariffs should be used specifically for bioremediation, and my prediction is that they largely won't be.

Comment: Re:Silly season much (Score 1) 99

by drinkypoo (#47444245) Attached to: Chinese Couple Sells Children To Support Online Game Addiction

My favorite thing about free to pay games is that so many games (FtP or otherwise) are only really fun during the buildup phase, and then they get a bit samey. You can go through all that without actually spending any money. You lose the time either way. Then you move on to the next game. Along the way, if you're feeling generous, you might file some bug reports. That is an awful lot like actual work, however.

Comment: Did not view images, but you only need a skirt (Score 1, Offtopic) 169

by drinkypoo (#47442935) Attached to: Rocket Scientist Designs "Flare" Pot That Cooks Food 40% Faster

I didn't view the images because you just get black squares without scripts. Come on, Slashdot, link a site that can write HTML, not where they're too incompetent to display images without javascript. This is 1990s technology. What year is it?

Anyway, on topic, all you actually need is a skirt to channel heat up the sides of the pot. If it's a little lower than the pot itself then the heat will flow up the sides of the pot and you get massively more heat transfer. One little piece of sheet metal, done.

+ - Utility wants $17,500 refund after failure to scrub negative search results-> 3

Submitted by mpicpp
mpicpp (3454017) writes "Seattle City Light worked really hard to quash 2008 article, may sue Brand.com.

Seattle’s publicly-owned electrical utility, City Light, is now demanding a refund for the $17,500 that it paid to Brand.com in a botched effort to boost the online reputation of its highly-paid chief executive, Jorge Carrasco.

Brand.com "enhances online branding and clears negatives by blanketing search results with positive content" in an attempt to counteract unwanted search engine results. City Light signed a contract with the company in October 2013 and extended it in February 2014. The contracts authorized payments of up to $47,500.

Hamilton said that he first raised the issue of the utility’s online reputation when he was interviewing for the chief of staff job in early 2013.

“All I saw were negative stories about storms, outages and pay increases and I raised it as a concern during that interview,” he said. “And then after I started, [CEO Jorge Carrasco] and I discussed what we could do to more accurately represent the utility and what the utility is all about, because we didn't feel it was well represented online.”

Thus, the Brand.com contract. City Light says that it only ever thought Brand.com would help it place legitimate material in legitimate outlets—talking up some of the positive changes that have taken place at City Light during Carrasco's tenure. Instead, it appears to have received mostly bogus blog posts."

Link to Original Source

"I'm not a god, I was misquoted." -- Lister, Red Dwarf

Working...