Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment That's dermatographic urticaria. (Score 1) 81

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) 405

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) 405

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) 405

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) 405

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) 296

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) 296

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) 296

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.

Comment Take a step back from what you wrote... (Score 1) 1304

My advice? Focus on content quality - Slashdot could easily post 3x the stories it does today, and have better QA - just by maybe hiring someone with some journalism credentials rather than making the people who write the back end server code pretend to be editors. Improve the quality and make it "must read" material that people are willing to pay for. And try encouraging some writers to create original content - not BS video interviews with talking heads from sponsors, but actual longform journalism. If Slashdot is actually a good enough read, you can monetize a subscription tier that echoes "Slate Plus," "ESPN Insider," etc.

In Slashdot's "glory days," it didn't have a lot of competition. There was no Gawker/Gizmodo/iO9/whatever to read about the coolest Star Wars prequel rumors; people came to Slashdot for that. Even though there's a lot of competition now, Slashdot (barely) hangs on to a superior virtue: a better quality of commenters and a better moderation system than other "nerd" sites. Slashdot was never very well managed, even back in the "CmdrTaco/Hemos Glory Days." Inject some QA into the story vetting/writing process and you'll see a resurgence of readership.

It might become clearer that you are promoting things which are essentially opposite to each other.
I.e. Readership and commenters - not the same people. Also, quantity ain't quality.
"3x the stories" only mean that those who comment and discuss ON A SINGLE STORY now miss out on even seeing 3 times more stories.

Say, you spend an hour each day on slashdot, and it takes you 1 minute to read through summaries of 20-24 daily stories and another 5-15 minutes to read through 4++ comments, after which you'll make 1-3 insightful posts, each taking you at least 15 minutes.
That's 22+10+2*15.
Little over an hour, on average. About hour and a half on the higher end.
Multiply the number of stories by 3, and now summaries alone takes up all of your Slashdot ALLOTTED time.
While a day still comes with only 24 hours in it to do all the things that need to be done "today".
Godforbid you stumble onto an interesting discussion or debate.
There goes your time for work, for your wife and kids, you get fired, wife leaves you and takes the kids, economy tanks, you turn to drugs and online porn...
Why do you hate America so much?

And while that might seem great from the "keep them glued to the screen" standpoint of a marketing drone - it clashes with the reality where, despite the popular opinion, Slashdot readership are no longer basement dwelling teenagers.
A 6-digit UID correlates with a 30+ age now. And it's impolite to stare at one's 5-digit and lower UID. Cause they may die soon.
That's 25% (or more) of actual commenters/readers. And where nearly all of the "better quality of commenters" comes from.
Also, that's where the disposable income is, for those looking to "monetize" the "audience".

At the same time, increase of the number of stories now means those same numbers of commenters comment LESS per story - cause they too have the same number of hours in their day.
And as it took decades to reach 4+ million UIDs - there's no chance in hell that will become 12+ million over night to maintain the comments per story ratio.
More stories to read == less time to comment.
I.e. Increase in the number of stories takes up time and kills discussion - that thing everyone is here for.

And if you somehow figure out a formula for better quality of comments and discussions... I reserve the right to be the first to congratulate you on getting the last Nobel Peace Prize. Like... the final one. Ever.
As you'd basically discover world peace.
Also, you owe me 10% of that money for the idea.
Fuck it... Make it 9%. It IS world peace...

As for gamifying moderation... which is what karma boils down to...
You don't want to turn your democratic process (voting comments up/down) into a gotta-catch-them-all game of collecting perks and badges.
BTW, remember achievements? Wasn't that just awesome? Right! Right?
NOR do you want to make it a popularity contest where Uber-mods (as in above... as in meta... as in higher...) get to be more "equal" than the lowly unwashed peasants.
Same goes for Uber-commenters. Lack of life and/or OCD medication is not something that should be rewarded with more "power" or "prestige".

As for "-1 Factually incorrect"... I like that.
But stuff like that would require mods to cite factually correct counter-information OR a proof of factual incorrectness in the original post... and then someone would have to validate that citation...
And then Jimmy Waleses start popping out of holes in the ground, begging for money (it's really repulsive to see millionaires doing that) and we're back to pumping gas underground and lighting the whole field on fire.

Comment Don't fret. You just suck at reading comprehension (Score 1) 296

The 15 k x 15 k was the figure I put up.

I'm not saying you're illiterate... or a liar.
Just that your prejudices lead you to be afraid of brown people so much, that all you see are large numbers.
And then you multiply them until you get millions.

But let's take another look at that link of yours.

Earlier this week, the Migration Service of Finland said that all the reception centers in the country were overcrowded, and the authorities were urgently looking for new places to host migrants.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Over 15,000 refugees have arrived in Finland in 2015, local media reported Saturday, citing the country's migration service.

"During this year, more than 15,000 asylum seekers have arrived in Finland. If you look at the number of arrivals in recent days, it appears that 600 people arrive every day," Juha Simila, spokesman of the migration service, said, as cited by the Yle news portal.

According to Simila, Finland spends around 15,000 euros a year per asylum seeker living in a refugee reception center. The amount also includes wages of the center employees, the media reported.

Earlier this month, Finland agreed to take in 2,400 asylum seekers as part of the European Commission's initiative to relocate 120,000 refugees from southern EU member states.

According to Prime Minister Juha Sipila, Finland is likely to resettle asylum seekers to other countries of the European Union if the bloc creates a permanent and binding mechanism of redistribution of refugees.

So... to sum it up.

1 - It's 15k euros per year, per an asylum seeker, LIVING IN THE RECEPTION CENTER.
2 - That sum includes salaries of people working in those reception centers.
3 - 15000 people arrived in Finland, but ONLY 2400 would be taken by said reception centers.
Incidentally, Finland takes in 3-4000 asylum seekers yearly.
4 - Rest (that is 15000 - 2400 = 12600) will be sent on their merry way to other countries.
5 - Out of that money (those 15k euros) nearly all of it goes right back into Finnish economy.

Actual money that a single, living alone refugee gets is 314.91 euros if the reception center does not provide meal - or 92.3 euros per month if there are meals provided.
Incidentally, if you plan to study in Finland (free tuition) you must provide a proof of having a MINIMUM of 560 euros per month to your name.

I.e. Living costs in Finland are estimated to be 218.09 euros higher than what is provided per a refugee.
Actual living costs are closer to 900 euros per month, or 585.09 more than what they spend monthly on feeding and clothing (that's what those 92.3 euros are supposed to be) a single refugee.

Now... deduct those 314.91 euros from those 1250 euros (15k divided by 12 months) - and you will get the costs of heating, cleaning, electricity, water, and the salaries of the people working in those centers.

Comment Re: Pounds or dollars (Score 5, Interesting) 255

Put some "obscene" and "violent" elements throughout the movie but keep it just within the allowed parameters.
For bonus points, put some of them in audio only (a "fuck" every few hours should do), while others are single frame images.

Then either call them out on not doing their work or have them stare at paint drying for 10 hours.

Slashdot Top Deals

Getting the job done is no excuse for not following the rules. Corollary: Following the rules will not get the job done.