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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Energy in? (Score 2) 100

Again, no way this makes sense... At least not for carbon sequestration.

Just dumping waste energy into methanol production doesn't seem to be a viable way to sequester carbon to me. Now if you want to make it into a means of making use of this waste energy, say as a motor fuel or something, and reduce the amount of carbon we release, that might work... Some... But it's going to be hugely expensive and very inefficient...

Comment Re:Let's see if I've got this right... (Score 2) 100

1: Install intake funnels over party caucuses, presidential debates etc etc. 2: Intake hot air > lower temperature > less global warming 3: Intake CO2 > methanol > less fossil fuel burning 4: PROFIT!

Just take their campaign cash from them, it will be easier, more efficient and might actually help the political process....

Comment Re:Energy in? (Score 1) 100

I see no mention of the energy put into the process vs the methanol output. Unless they are close, this would make no sense.

Trust me, it makes no sense... I can guarantee you that it takes a lot more energy input than you can get out of the methanol.

Maybe, being a liquid fuel that can be burned in internal combustion engines it makes sense as an energy storage medium, but if you wan to produce methanol, just produce it the normal ways. It will be cheaper and more efficient.

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 346

Enemy combatants/POW's and Unlawful Combatants are NOT afforded constitutional rights by the military and never will. Even if you are a US citizen, if you are an enemy combatant in a zone where the military is conducting combat operations, guess what, you don't get to complain that they killed or detained you without due process.

Now if you don't think that's a good idea, or that this is somehow unethical and you think it should be changed, I ask you to carefully consider the implications and costs of what you are suggesting. The military simply MUST not be burdened with protecting the constitutional rights of combatants when conducting combat operations. They also must NOT be viewed as a law enforcement agency or be expected to operate under rules of engagement which pretend they are. The military is the military, it's for killing people and breaking stuff in the defense of the nation's interest, not for enforcing laws.

Comment What's in a name? (Score 1) 104

Apparently in this case, the name represents the actual size of the production run...

Seriously, I recall it was like pulling teeth when the Raspberry Pi model B+ came out to get one. The supply problem will work it's way out, remain calm.

Comment Re:She will ether be president or prisoner. (Score 1) 634

Though I do believe that a preemptive pardon is illegal and would be found so by the courts.

Wasn't for Nixon. History disagrees with you.

Really? Last I heard, Nixon, who was never charged, never had is pardon challenged in court by either side. There is zero precedent to prove a pre-emptive pardon is legal or not except that Ford's action was never challenged. I don't think Hillary would be so lucky.

You may think I'm partisan, but what Hillary did with the E-mail thing on a private server IS illegal. Somebody broke the law, apparently multiple somebodies did. It was a violation of State Department regulations, PLUS given the classified nature of some of the e-mails, multiple felonies where committed. Was it Hillary committing these crimes? Sure seems likely to me. Many of the classified E-mail messages she wrote herself, or where sent under her authority as if they came from her. Not to mention that if she even SAW classified data in an unprotected environment it was her responsibility under law, to take the necessary steps to report and secure the information to the best of her ability or it's a felony too.

Now if you wan to believe Hillary's story that she didn't do anything wrong... Well, first you are going to have to pick which of Hillary's stories you are talking about, we are on the fourth or fifth version of this now.... You are going to have to explain how Hillary didn't commit a crime here. Is she incompetent enough to not recognize what classified information was? Was she so stupid that she not know it was being sent over an unsecure channel? You tell me, how does she get out of this, beyond a presidential pardon from Obama?

Comment Re: Fundamentals (Score 1) 346

No, but you cannot force the military into a law enforcement role AFTER the fact either.

I'm not saying there are any easy answers here, only that the often suggested solution of trying them in criminal court is STUPID in that the outcome can be predetermined with nearly 100% accuracy. Regardless of what they did or didn't do, they will walk on technicalities. They where NOT arrested and advised of their rights, they where detained without charge, they where not provided a lawyer even if they requested one and the evidence that was collected hasn't been vetted and maintained to the legal standards necessary for a prosecution to get it introduced at trial. Any ONE of these issues gets them out the jailhouse door.

So, you just want to let them go? Forget all this trial business and just SAY that up front....

Personally, I'm waiting for the military to deal with this. Given we are plowing new legal ground, trying unlawful combatants, I'm guessing this will take awhile. Given the nature of the people involved, I would expect the prudent thing is to leave them where they are.

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 346

Enemy combatants are NOT afforded constitutional rights by the military, they can be killed, detained without charge and questioned without a lawyer present even after they request legal representation. PLEASE tell me you understand why this is and why you don't want to change it.... So, if you put them on trial, what do you suppose the FIRST motion their appointed lawyer is going to make?

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 346

What do you mean by a trial? You want them in a federal court in down town New York? Just let them go then, they won't be convicted because the military does not follow the proper law enforcement procedure when detaining somebody, nor do they concern themselves with obtaining and storing their evidence so it can be used in a criminal trial...

You want a military tribunal? They are getting that process now, stand by for results and in the mean time Club Gitmo stays open.

I suspect that you really just want to let them go though...

Comment Re:Fundamentals (Score 1) 346

Why is it that SOOOO many people don't understand the basic legal structure of our government and under what rules parts of it operate in? Don't they teach this stuff in school anymore?

The military is NOT a law enforcement agency. They don't investigate and arrest people guilty of crimes, they kill people, break things and occasionally detain combatants on the battlefield though capture or surrender. Until you understand and admit how that's different from law enforcement, I don't think you are going to understand what I'm saying. (Or do you really understand but choose to act like you don't because you've already decided to let these people walk free?)

Slashdot Top Deals

The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time, the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time.