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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:There are some estimates on Wattway site. (Score 1) 407

I WAS describing a niche product - i.e. driveways.

Something doesn't have to provide a complete societal solution to be useful to an individual - or the society.
Enough driveways with it eventually would make a difference.
If you also use your driveway as the site for your thermal storage for passive heating... this could be a nice bonus, increasing the efficiency of the system.

All I'm saying is that the idea is not completely useless. There ARE niches for it.

Comment You do realize that what you said makes no sense? (Score 1) 407

You do realize that even in the impossible 100% efficient system, the max thermal emission cannot exceed that which was handed to it by the sun right?

Assuming here you're not a climate change denier, only shortsighted.

What 100% efficiency?

Solar power efficiency? Nowhere near that.
Energy transfer efficiency? Impossible. Second law of thermodynamics.
Cannot exceed that which was handed to it by the sun? Not true - because what is stated above.

Electricity used for heating roads could not be 100% solar based even if solar panels could create electricity despite being covered with snow, in the winter, with shorter daylight times and overcast skies.
Thus, energy to melt snow would have to come from other sources.
Being that most of the electricity produced and used today does not come from renewable sources, all that remains are nuclear (which are a tiny percent) and fossil-fuel based electricity.

Ergo, heating up roads can and would mostly be done by burning fossil fuels.
I.e. Pumping both additional heat energy into the system by melting snow with energy not coming from solar sources WHILE pumping greenhouse gasses into it as well.
In other words, for every 100 Watts of electric energy spent to melt the snow, at best ~20 Watts would come from solar sources - everything else would come from traditional sources, most of which are fossil based.

ONLY in the case where ALL electricity everywhere (and energy - you can't just hide heating and cooking and various industrial processes and claim 100% renewable energy use) is produced by renewable sources would that not be true.

And even then, it would be a case of shunting solar energy from the summer side of the planet to try to keep the winter side of the planet warm...
Which even should it be possible (it's not... for both technical and political reasons - like borders and such) would again be a literal case of trapping more solar energy in the form of heat which is pumped into the areas that are supposed to be cold at that time of year.

It's the same thing as using sunlight to grow trees on the sunny side of the planet, then using solar-powered chainsaws to cut them down and chop them up, putting them into solar-powered ovens and making charcoal, then transporting that charcoal in solar-powered vehicles to the dark side of the planet and burning it there.
It's not carbon or energy neutral - additional energy is captured, stored and released into the system at each step.

Comment Not gender bias - CONFIRMATION BIAS (Score 1) 287

- Reverse-discrimination against men? Rejected, per the observation that there is evidence of discrimination against women when gender is identified.

Study CLAIMS no evidence of gender bias (while concentrating on bias towards or against women only) when gender is identifiable (from name, photo or profile on GitHub).
Study shows bias in interpretation of data though.
It ignores error bars in graphs (no real numbers are shown, just percentage graphs) AND paints a simplistic "more-pulls-4-women-except-when-identified" image.
Study's graphs on the other hand show NO BIAS towards women or men.

First of all, when COMPLETE IDENTITY (and thus quality of work, not just gender) is known - there is NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between male and female "pulls".

In "insider" cases where identity is known, supposedly gender-positive (you can tell who's male or female) IDs have a slight pro-female bias (~87.5% female vs. ~86% male), with barely existent error bars for males and tiny bars for females.
I keep using tildes, cause all that is presented are graphs - no percentages or real numbers are shown for this case, you have to eyeball them.
Where supposedly gender-neutral IDs are used, there is a tiny pro-male bias (~88% +/- ~1% female vs. ~88.5% +/- ~0.7% male).

I.e. There is NO pro- or contra-, male or female, bias when COMPLETE IDENTITY is known.

In "outsider" cases where gender and identity is supposedly unknown (though clearly identifiable through email vs social network profiles comparison - which is where they got their data and what they are basing their study on)...
There is a slight pro-female bias in supposed gender-neutral IDs (~72% +/- ~1.5% female vs. ~69% +/- ~1% male) and a tiny pro-male bias in supposed gender-positive IDs (~62.3% +/- ~0.7% female vs. ~63% +/- ~0.0something% male).

Again, these are eyeballed values.
Study lists female gender neutral percentage in "outsider" cases as 71.8% and female gender identifiable percentage as 62.5% - claiming it as proof of bias against women who identify as such.
These are the only values presented in numerical form in this hypothesis.

I.e. There is NO pro- or contra-, male or female, bias when full identity is (supposedly) unknown either, but study tries to claim the opposite by ignoring own findings.

In other words, while looking for a hypothesis to explain their findings of bias, they accidentally took the gender-bias hypothesis they found behind the shed, and controlled it by putting a bullet in its head.
Then, not noticing that said finding of bias is dead, they kept on beating it, claiming it's alive and highly agile.
Kinda like in the dead parrot sketch, only here the salesmen really do believe that the parrot is just stunned and pining for fjords.

Comment Because... patterns. (Score 1) 264

Why does the area of academic research matter?

Humans love patterns and "big things" more than insular and isolated cases.

Article quotes heavily the Survey of Academic Field Experiences which was featured here at Slashdot at least twice.

Both times it was presented as a science-wide issue - though the survey only covered anthropological fields.

Nearly half of the study participants self-identified as anthropologists from several subfields (applied, biological, linguistic, medical, physical, psychological, and socio-cultural) (N=319/666, 47.9%).
Nearly a quarter of the sample self-identified as archaeologists (N=159, 23.9%).
The rest of the sample comprised biologists (N=68, 10.2%); zoologists (N=31, 4.7%); geologists (N=29, 4.4%); other life, environmental, and agricultural scientists (N=22, 3.3%); and other social scientists (N=12, 1.8%).

This time on the other hand, that survey actually CAN be used to show that this particular case is a part of a PATTERN of sexual harassment in anthropology.

Only problem is... that survey is JUNK as its methodology is crap.
This is how sexual harassment was defined:

A majority (64%, N=423/658) of all survey respondents, stated that they had personally experienced sexual harassment: i.e. inappropriate or sexual remarks, comments about physical beauty, cognitive sex differences, or other such jokes.

PDF version defined that a LITTLE differently:

Have you ever personally experienced inappropriate or sexual remarks, comments about physical beauty, cognitive sex differences, or other jokes, at a field site?

This is what kind of data was gathered:

A majority of survey respondents reported that they had directly observed or been told about the occurrence of other field site researchers and/or colleagues making inappropriate or sexual remarks at their most recent or most notable field site (N=448/619, 72.4%).

I.e. Literal hearsay was accepted as data.

Also, while the study claims that "Men were more likely to report that comments never occurred, whereas women were more likely to report that comments occurred frequently" - graphs representing that data show something else.
First off... by using "proportion of respondents" as a y-axis of the graph, 50 males who answered "never" (as well as 50 who answered "rarely") is depicted as MORE than 117 females who answered "never" AND 180 females who answered "rarely".

In other words, 100 males and 297 females answered "never" or "rarely".
While 20+12 males and 94+90 females answered "regularly" or "frequently".
I.e. However you look at it - that line about women being more likely to report "frequent" comments IS BULLSHIT.

Also, while on the side of "sexual harassment" survey was rather broad in defining sexual harassment, definition of "sexual assault" was rather vague.

Have you ever experienced physical sexual harassment, unwanted sexual contact, or sexual contact in which you could not or did not give consent or felt it would be unsafe to fight back or not give your consent at a field site?

I.e. On one side "other jokes" are sexual harassment.
On the other, no definition of "unwanted sexual contact" or "physical sexual harassment" is given, while it is implied that it is something different from "sexual contact in which you could not or did not give consent or felt it would be unsafe to fight back or not give your consent".

Comment Nice spin there... US being "only" biggest spender (Score 1) 286

Or as you put it... "only about 1.5x the world average of ~2.3% of GDP".

Or... we could look at it like this...
USA spends ALONE as much as 9 (NINE) next biggest world military spenders COMBINED. And then some.
USA = China + Saudi Arabia + Russia + UK + France + Japan + India + Germany + South Korea + 14.7 billion dollars (change).
Or, you can take the other source - where USA spends more, but so does everyone else, thus USA spends "only" as much as the next top 7 spenders. And change.

Also, do note that "% of GDP" is just one of the factors one has to take in consideration when comparing military spending.
Otherwise, one might get a bright idea that Saudi Arabia has the biggest and baddest military force on the planet, from all that cherry picking.

On a side note... a large wealthy household being large still makes them assholes for spending millions on lobster and caviar.
Just like "Oh, but I have 5 kids" is not an excuse for speeding in one's Lamborghini - it actually just makes one a bigger dick.

Comment It's the same with books. (Score 1) 239

I have even done a few nasty binges where I would swear to "stop by midnight" only to look outside and see that it was dawn.

Losing oneself in a book, reading until the break of dawn cause you "just couldn't put the book down" is a common occurrence.
Often referred to with a dose of nostalgia and sympathy, along with reading with a flashlight, under the covers.

It's not the medium - it's the message.
Humans are suckers for vicarious experiences.
Particularly in the form of fiction - but they will also gladly waste hours and travel miles to watch millionaires kick or throw a ball around.

Comment That's dermatographic urticaria. (Score 1) 83

I remember when I was about 12, I had this odd skin reaction that was like just random inflammation, and I could never figure out what caused it. It used to really freak people out.. I could sometimes just take my fingernail and scratch lightly on my arm and write words and about 20 to 30 minutes later the word would swell up and turn red and look like someone had carved a word on me with a knife and then 20 minutes after that it was gone.

That's dermatographic urticaria. It's relatively common - about 5% of people have it.

Comment Re:There are some estimates on Wattway site. (Score 1) 407

But why even do it in your driveway when its much cheaper to put them on the roof?

Same basic reason that underlies all those "let's put it on the roads" - it's a large and mostly empty surface which has to be kept clear and uncluttered 99% of the time.
Bonus points for it being attached to the actual building where actual people would spend actual harvested electricity - instead of miles from nowhere, with all the losses of transporting the electricity to the actual households.

Sure... you COULD build a solar roof over your driveway... but maybe you need special permits and such for that.
Maybe you or your family members don't want a roof on stilts in front of your home or over your yard - while you do want more solar capacity than what your roof may provide.

A niche solution for all those niches where regular roof-mounted solar panels can't be installed, but there is free and empty walking/driving surface nearby.
Hell, even those solar-fucking hexagons make sense if you rip out most of the bullshit (LEDs, heaters, 20 tons or so of concrete "access ports" and foundation...) and use them for paving roads in parks and gardens.
IF they can be produced cheaply enough, that is.

But not compared to the cost of paving the roads - compared to cost of installing regular solar panels, on, around or over that surface.
Besides, solar fucking hexagons were the only ones retarded enough to suggest ripping out existing roads and putting in magical hexagons instead.
French Wattway assumes existing asphalt roads underneath the glued-on photovoltaics, Dutch SolaRoad is assembled from concrete slabs with a top layer of photovoltaics - which is just the thing for driveways.

Comment Heated roads are a product of mental retardation.. (Score 1) 407

incorporate heating elements

This is the most retarded part of that proposal. Even beyond the "let's put LEDs in it and forgo on paint".

Heat does not magically disappear.
Even should all of the electricity used come from solar sources, melting snow with heat is LITERALLY producing global warming.
Not climate change, not greenhouse effect - putting heaters in the ground and running power through them to evaporate ice and snow.
Literally heating the fucking surface of the globe.

It would probably be more effective AND ecologically sound to simply spray the roads with gasoline and light them on fire.
At least nobody would be driving on the roads while they burn.

Comment Not the same tech. (Score 1) 407

Dutch used 2.5 x 3.5 concrete slabs with a solar cell layer on top - for bicycles.

French are supposed to be GLUED ONTO existing asphalt roads AND they are supposedly sturdy enough to handle trucks.
Well... at least regarding weight... no mention of how they handle a truck or a bus slamming on the breaks on that glued on surface.

Comment There are some estimates on Wattway site. (Score 1) 407

What is the price per m2?

Wattway's price per m2 is to be seen in light of the production cost of electricity.
Photovoltaic energy is measured in watt-peak, which takes into account sunlight conditions.
Today, depending on the technology used and the support on which the panels are installed, prices fluctuate between 2 to 8 euros/watt-peak.
The cost with Wattway is estimated at 6 euros/watt-peak.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note that Wattway can turn an existing surface into a money-maker by providing an additional use, which has a positive impact on the final price.
With Wattway, there is no need to rent or purchase farmland to install solar panels, nor do you need to redo your entire roof to produce photovoltaic electricity!

How efficient is Wattway compared to a conventional solar panel?

Wattway panels have a 15% yield, compared to 18-19% for conventional photovoltaic panels.

So... More expensive (per watt) than conventional solar panels, with ~20% lesser yield.
Which would probably decrease by at least 30% per panel, as that is about the area of the panel that would get most tires tracking over it.
Which brings us down to ~10% yield.
While the cost stays in the upper 25%, meaning it's 3 times more expensive than the cheapest panels out there. Per watt.
Combine that with the (optimistic) reduction in yield due to dirt, and they are ~5-6 times more expensive.

Now... considering this article's claim that "4m of solarised road is enough to supply one household's electricity needs, apart from heating, and one kilometre will light a settlement with 5,000 inhabitants"...
And similar claims regarding similar but FAR MORE realistic project in Amsterdam and the claims of "enough energy to power three households" per 100 meters, later readjusted a bit to "provide a single-person household with electricity for a year" for about half a year of work, per 70 meters or road installed (which comes out to not quite but almost 3 homes per 100 meters)...
Those 4 meters of road per household seem to be calculated based on roads some 4-5 lanes wide.
Granted, not the same tech as that Dutch bike lane but that's how wide those bike lanes would have be to to provide that same amount of power.

Which is not the issue of lack of such roads... but that's a lot of potential potholes.
Which does not really sound realistic for regular roads, considering Wattway's "fresh asphalt with no deformations or ruts" policy.

How long does a Wattway panel last?

A Wattway panel lasts as long as conventional pavement, meaning at least 10 years depending on the traffic, which speeds up wear.
If the section is not heavily trafficked - a stadium parking lot for example - then Wattway panels can last roughly 20 years.

Are Wattway panels all-weather?

Wattway panels are rainproof thanks to the fact that the silicon cells are encapsulated and the junction box which provides the connection between the panels complies with IP66 sealing effectiveness standards.
The panels have even passed the snowplow test with flying colors.
Operators do, however, need to operate the machines with a bit more care on Wattway panels than on conventional pavement.

Can Wattway be installed on any type of road? Are there any constraints (roadway condition, tight curves, etc.)?

Wattway can be installed on any road with asphalt pavement that is recent, with no cracks, ruts, deformation, or asbestos.
The road must comply with stipulated technical and commercial specifications.

Wattway across France sounds not very well thought through nor very realistic in comparison to that Dutch project.
Though, I'm not disregarding it completely. It sounds like something that could become useful and economic at very large volumes, a few years down the road.
Or something that would be great for driveways.

Comment Tell it to the OP. (Score 1) 308

He pulled that article out of his ass, without being able to read it properly.
I frankly don't care about Finland or refugees or what will both sides end up telling themselves about themselves and others five or ten years down the road.

I just refuted his "arguments" by pointing out that he can't read - which leaves only the question "Why did he read something that was not there?" on the table.
Which he provided with an answer by replying with a "sell your computer right now and give it to the "brown people" you worship" tirade.

Just remember to give sources to your quotes - cause he clearly can't even google up anything for himself.
You apparently have different sources. Feel free to source him up.

Comment You understand you're off in cognitive dissonance? (Score 1) 308

Here... Let me quote you.

Everyone there pays for it through large taxes

Someone else is forced to pay for it.

Who is that mythical "someone else" if "everyone" is already paying it? Martians? God? Smurfs?
When "everyone pays", everyone pays LESS, and everyone gets to have the same (and much higher) quality of service due to the pooling and sharing of resources.
And there is no "someone else" - cause "everyone" already includes EVERYONE.
Thus everyone pays less and gets more.

That's why a bus ticket costs less than a ride in a taxi and a ride in a taxi costs less than renting a car which costs less than buying a car - same resources get used by many people thus reducing per capita costs of being driven or driving from A to B instead of walking there until you can afford a car of your own.

Comment Ah... the old "I have no arguments" canard. (Score 1) 308

But hey... you said racist. I just called you a coward.

But it's nice to see that when faced with your own ignorance and inability to refute any of the arguments (which IS kinda hard to do when facing truth) - you run and hide behind a fallacy. Or two... Or more...
While even the punctuation fails you. Or are you secretly a 12 year old? Or maybe a dog?

What a truly pathetic creature you must be.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computer programmers do it byte by byte.