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


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re:hmm... (Score 1) 170

Holy shit that's even worse.Yeah it just looked at it and it's basically...the complete opposite of open source. Not even "closed source" but like...completely closed and obfuscated platform where you may not know what the software is doing. It's difficult to describe how monumentally stupid this is. I find myself...stupefied.

Comment Re:Calculations (Score 2) 75

They're talking about the theoretical strength of SWNTs, which is upwards of 120GPa. But the highest ever measured SWNT strength, last I read, was around 60Ga - and that's the properties of individual tubes (ropes don't even approach it).

Whenever you're reading something and it mentions needing a "carbon nanotube tether", toss whatever you're reading in the "sci-fi" category. Not even the hard sci-fi category. And all for what - a ~6 year Pluto transit time? Lame.

Don't they have anything better to research?

Heck, even I can think of a more plausible approach than that - one that doesn't require unobtanium at least. Forget the "diamond anchor", land a microsat on it (approaching comet, not a retreating one). Yeah, that takes a lot of delta-V, but if it's just a microsatellite, then that's not a lot of mass. Then, forget about the "carbon nanotube tether"; use a space fountain between the large craft and the lander. Space fountains (such as paired coilguns, for example) are plausible with today's technology, requiring no unobtainium.

But the whole concept of delta-V from a comet is just not a worthwhile avenue to pursue either way. Way too much difficulty and mechanisms for failure for way too little reward.

Comment Re:100% Consensus among scientific organizations (Score 2) 292

The win-win scenario is vastly increased investment into nuclear electric generation. Nuclear is already the safest form of baseline power generation, and is 100% carbon free. Next-gen technologies offer the possibility of less than 5 per KWH electricity, and no possibility of meltdowns. The world needs plentiful, non-stop power going forward. The ONLY carbon-free way of achieving that is nuclear power, and this can be done with no sacrifice, and no penalty to the poor via increased energy prices.

You could be right. My preferred option would be to let the markets pick the winners and losers. The key is to apply a revenue neutral carbon tax that ensures that any fees collected are spent in reducing income tax and sales tax. That way we are taxing behaviours that we want to discourage, and lowering taxes on things we ought to be encouraging.

The problem is that such a scheme is still regressive, at least here in the US. The poor pay no income tax, and there is usually no sales tax on food and other necessities. A carbon tax would raise the cost of energy, and if applied to gasoline and diesel, would increase the cost of goods pretty much across the board. Also, plenty of poor people would be hurt by higher gasoline prices.

If there were fewer artificial barriers to nuclear (including somehow educating the public regarding the actual instead of perceived risks) it would quickly become one of the least expensive options - cheaper than coal or gas.

One of the more practical approaches to next-gen, molten salt nuclear is being developed at ThorCon.

Comment Re:hurrrudururrururur (Score 1) 106

Also, you are not an idiot who is unable to recognize and ignore a retarded troll comment that's already been modded -1.

This is why I find women (ahem) like Brianna Wu insufferable. When faced with yes, truly horrible sounding things that no human should say to another, instead of ignoring it or laughing at it, she flees from her home in "mortal terror." Given that saying horrific things to strangers is par for the course on the internet, no reasonable person could possibly take that seriously. If .01% of rape and death threats made over XBox Live were followed through the streets would be ankle deep in blood. Has it ever happened? No. Does that mean it's okay to say such things? No, I think very poorly of anyone who says such things. But I think worse of those who respond.

To be genuinely horrified and offended by stupid things said by morons on the Internet is a strong indicator that you are very stupid. To pretend to be horrified and offended by stupid things said by morons on the Internet to garner sympathy and attention from others is to be a manipulative lying weasel deserving derision.

Only a fool or a weasel would react to "if you were around back then maybe she would suck your dick! turns out there really IS a reason to have women in IT!"

I THINK MAN INVENTED THE CAR by instinct. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.