Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Submission + - US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Has Died (chicagotribune.com)

chill writes: Title says it all. How quickly can the Republicans turn this into a campaign issue? The opportunity to appoint a TRUE conservative to the court can't be left to Democrats.

He died on a hunting trip in Texas. No word yet on whether Dick Cheney was involved.

Comment Re:windturbines are not the solution (Score 1) 190

You are truly an idiot, who apparently can't even read comprehensively. Are you really THAT daft? Or are you wilfully obtuse?

Do you NOT comprehend they are shutting those down because it makes no ECONOMIC sense for those companies, and that the German state is now considering giving subsidies to those gas-fired plants BECAUSE they are needed!? I've EXPLICITLY said so in my last post, exactly to exclude the possibility you would - again - (mis)interpret it for your own sake. apparently, to no avail, because you still didn't comprehend it. READ MY LAST PARAGRAPH, slacker, and you would have known that I read that last paragraph AND then you wouldn't have made an even bigger fool of yourself. Instead, now your claiming I didn't read it, while I repeated it almost verbatim. FAIL. The bigger irony now being, that you just proved you re the brain dead idiot who doesn't even read or can't comprehend what is written and just comes up with the first thing that pops up in his mind and spouting it around.

And once again, I note you didn't provide even one relevant single link to substantiate YOUR claims, once again, while, again, deriding mine. Yes, sure, because no substantiation and just saying it as a know-all proves the argument so much better, no doubt.

You're so stupid it hurts my eyes. You're making an 'argument' that now bites you back in the ass, but worse, you have clearly not understood what they're saying here - at all. You think that because they close those plants because they're not economical viable anymore, that this means they are not needed anymore. So much for your vaunted 'logic'. Delicious irony indeed.

Comment Re:And the 4 combinations are... (Score 2) 51

"The results suggest that four common drug combinations may cause a potentially fatal heart rhythm." ... Um, which are? May be important in here.

I wouldn't get your panties in a twist just yet. Even though the methodology is interesting there is ** NO ** statistical analysis of the data so I'm presuming that non exists and this is one of those many, many "associative" studies that don't pan out in practice. To their credit, they try to correlate the drugs with some sort of plausible biochemical pathway but without any sort of kinetic data, it is impossible to determine if these things actually do happen and if they do, to what frequency.

The combination of ceftriaxone (an antibiotic) and lanzaprole (a Prilosec clone for acid reduction) is extremely common in a hospitalized setting. If there was any reasonable clinical correlation we would likely have seen something by now.

It is food for thought, good for a bunch of grants but I'd still buckle my seatbelt and stay away from errant meteors.

Comment Re:windturbines are not the solution (Score 1) 190


I'll take even your own example of a unicorn. IF I had only claimed 'a unicorn exists because I say so, but I can't be bothered to provide proof' - much like you do with your arguments - then one would have a point. However, if I link to a scientific paper stating unicorns do exist and why, then, when you still claim it's not true, it's for you to demonstrate the earlier conclusion is false - with counterarguments that are also verifiable. Saying you can't be bothered to read it, or that it's 'old data' doesn't cut it.

So the matter is not your preconceived idea about whether unicorns do or do not exist - which was what you were implying with the use of such an analogy - but whether it can be demonstrated by falsification whether it exists or not.

In the case of the stochastic nature of the weather, I already gave you the definition of stochastic - so no semantic discussion can arise -, I logically argued why the weather conforms to that definition, and I even gave you a link to a scientific paper which confirmed it.

your only answer basically is, that it isn't because you say so. and you can't link to any proof of what you say, because it isn't. that's a tautology. Since the paper claims differently, one can reasonably assume other papers would contradict it, if it were true, as you so vehemently keep insisting that it isn't. Well, then: I merely ask that you provide a link to sites or papers that show the opposite, and confirm your claim. Idem for the 'no need' for backup of gas/coal/oil plants.

And, here, I'll give you some more links that demonstrate the fact that renewables need backup of classical plants, ALSO in Denmark and Germany:

The 'hidden' coal plants are not hidden at all - if you bother to do some basic research before claiming something, that is. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). And of course they also have gas-fired power stations too. For the necessity of Denmark to rely on gasturbines/plants as backup: https://carboncounter.wordpres...
and for Germany: https://www.dissentmagazine.or... and https://www.bcgperspectives.co...

I'll even give the quote:

"Prices in 2023 may therefore be 10 to 20 percent higher than those in 2013. (See Exhibit 8.) Note that this calculation includes all applicable taxes and levies, including a “security of supply component” (hidden today in grid use fees) used to finance the development of sufficient backup capacity to cover peak demand hours that lack sufficient feed-in from renewables."

Note that, while it deals with prices, it mentions the fact that part of it is due to develop sufficient backup capacity. Ergo - let's use logic here - if there WAS NO NEED for backup, they wouldn't need to develop it, nor augment to prices for it. Hence, backup is needed.

And if you're still not convinced: http://energytransition.de/201...

I'll give you the relevant quote yet again:

"Essentially, Germany needs to have a dispatchable installed capacity at the level of its peak demand for the year, which is currently around 80 gigawatts and occurs on winter evenings – when the sun does not shine. A large part of that 80 gigawatts therefore needs to be built as dispatchable gas turbines."

Again: it is CLEARLY stated that gasturbines are needed as backup. Once again, the conclusion can only be that renewables ARE de facto, in need of backup. And they will always be, until one has developed storage-capacities that can cover long time-spans (several weeks at least). And I hve also already indicated in my first post, why simply putting more windmills and connecting everything to a smart grid (which does not exist yet) does not work from an economic perspective. (hint: because you'll have a huge over-capacity then for most of the time. Which means you'll have to sell it very cheap, and hence, it can not survive in a free market and thus will need perpetual subsidies of the state to remain afloat.)

In fact, another of the problems already arising now - which are mentioned at the end of the last link/page I gave, is that in Germany they are shutting down the gasplants because they're already non-profitable to run (seen the heavy subsidies of renewables). Yet, since they are needed for backup, now Germany is considering even subsidising gas-fired plants, so they remain profitable. Mind you: the gasturbines are not being shut of because they are not needed anymore, but because they're not profitable anymore, and subsidising those gas-plants IS done because one needs them as backup.

Comment Re:windturbines are not the solution (Score 1) 190

Yes, and contrary to you, I *did* do the trouble of reading them. Only, they pertain no confirmation of your claim that it's not stochastic, nor does it substantiate your assertion that no backup is needed anymore from classical plants.

And don't complain about my post being insulting if you start being insulting in the first place, even though you then say 'maybe I worded it wrongly'. I'm a fervent proponent of free speech, but also of reciprocity, so don't start complaining you get the same treatment as you give others. "I stop here with debunking your bullshit." is where you started with language which you already should have known it was not going to be conductive of having an amicable discussion. Oh, don't tell me: in your opinion, it was merely stating an obvious fact, no doubt. Well, in reciprocity, I'm only saying an equally obvious fact. And thus:

In all honesty, you're an arrogant twit, and I think you know it. Or maybe not, with your bloated ego, but at least others know it too, seen your response(s) and the reactions you get from others in other threads. The one that is uneducated is you, AND you refuse to learn and don't even try to read anything that contradicts your set views, all in the absolute certainty that you know it best, and all the rest not, that you are an expert determining what is stochastic or not, because you claim to program and are a sailor (while questioning 'why should I be an expert in stochastic systems' when the fallacy of speaking from authority is *exactly* the fact that people that are NOT experts on the subjects act as if they do).

In short, you STILL did not provide any link that substantiates your claim about the weather not being stochastic, NOR that windmills don't need any back up anymore. Not surprising, because those assertions are untrue. I provided you the links to substantiate MY claims on the matter (one of which was to a scientific paper), but then you complain it's 'old data', while YOU didn't even give ANY data, nor provide links to papers that would indicate why the old data would be wrong. How very consistent...

You simply fail to grasp the basics of any rational debate, namely that your claims and arguments need to be substantiated, or they're basically worthless and don't amount to anything (the same is true for assertions based on your own expertise without giving proof of that expertise).

Comment Re:Extra battery? (Score 1) 278

They are. I have a 15000 mAh unit; two, 2.4 ampere outputs. Wouldn't be without it, can't really, at least unless the companies making the cellphones stop putting too-small batteries in them. last weekend I drove five hours, during about 3 of which we were either completely out of contact or only in distant contact with a cell tower (Montana... lots and lots of empty space.) When we left the city, my phone was at 25%. I kept the phone (a Galaxy Note III with an aftermarket "big" battery that's good for about 48 hours here, where we're within about 4 miles of a cell tower) plugged into the external unit for the entire trip, and when we got home, the phone was at 100% and the external unit at 45%, which allowed for both charging it and running it.

Really, won't even consider being without that external unit. As for a pager... no. Just no.

Comment Re:Who still uses pagers? (Score 2) 278

You can still buy brand new Motorola Minitors. v and 6's are current. Yep, they're old tech and voice besides. The new once have a bit of memory so you can replay the page which was the biggest issue with the old analogs.

I just delivered four brand new ones to some ER docs. The youngest one looked at it a bit curiously. I think it's the first time he's seen a pager.

Comment Re:Cool! (Score 1) 446

No, the parent poster is right. He's basically a troll. He ALWAYS asserts claims and conclusions with the utmost certainty, denying all other arguments, refusing to read anything that would contradict his own thoughts on the matter, yet never manages to give even the most basic reference or link to anything that would substantiate his own claims.

Comment Re:Cool! (Score 1) 446

Indeed, he's basically a troll. He ALWAYS asserts claims and conclusions with the utmost certainty, denying all other arguments, refusing to read anything that would contradict his own thoughts on the matter, yet never manages to give even the most basic reference or link to anything that would substantiate his own claims.

Comment Re:Photoshop, anybody (Score 0) 195

The reason(s) why the Mac is sometimes said to be better in DTP, Graphic design and Video editing is simple really:
The Mac had the first consumer graphics environment and desktop publishing software, back in the 80's, so it made a name in that field since there was really no competition. Then, graphic designers prefer it because they study in art schools and art schools select their computers for their design, so they still chose mac after it was no longer the only graphical environment. If you were taught in macs, you continue to choose macs, so a lot of graphic designers think it is better, even though they don' actually get better tools. Finally, about video editing, a lot of people swore by Final Cut Pro which was mac-only, hence mac was better for them. I have no opinion on that, never having done any serious video editing myself. I hope this answers it for you.

Except you're a decade behind the times. Look at any serious graphics art department and it's pretty much all PCs. My stepson works as a bona fide graphics artist in a AAA gaming studio. I've toured both companies he has worked at - PCs all the way around except a Mac Book Air now and again running spreadsheets.

People like Mac laptops because they're good laptops, irrespective of the OS. For a while, the 15 inch MBP was considered the best Windows laptop available. Shortly thereafter, Microsoft started it's 'signature' series where PCs were built with a modicum of quality and without a bunch of shovel ware. I think now you can get a Windows laptop every bit as good as a MBP. Except for the damned power connector. Why nobody else has managed a magnetic power connector that doesn't impinge on Apple's patents is one of the worlds great mysterys to me.

Slashdot Top Deals

Established technology tends to persist in the face of new technology. -- G. Blaauw, one of the designers of System 360