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


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

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 113

And yet in Northern latitudes you can get only a few scant hours of daylight in the winter.

So, if you got sun, use it .. if you don't got sun, LEDs are what you need.

Oddly enough, there is no single solution which works everywhere. But apparently when you have an underground bunker in the UK, you can still find something which works

Comment Re:Keeping them certainly is the challenge (Score 1) 215

tells me she's quitting and training to become an "aesthetician" because she is sick and tired of (I paraphrase) being treated like shit because she is female

So now instead of working with assholes she'll have to look at them.

That she considers this an improvement says just how bad it must be.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 113

Umm, where do you think greenhouses get their light?

They sure as hell don't get it all from the sun .. London is further North than Green Bay Wisconsin.

Nobody is growing vegetables in greenhouses in Green Bay Wisconsin in the winter without some additional lighting.

And London is about 5 degrees further North.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 113

Umm, where do you think greenhouses get their light?

Ah, you're one of those people ... believe it or not, a good portion of the planet lives in latitudes where the sunlight in winter is inadequate for growing crops even in a greenhouse ... and by changing the light cycles, you can change how long it takes to be able to harvest to a much shorter cycle.

In a lot of cases greenhouses still need to have big giant sodium lights because the few hours of daylight isn't enough to grow plants.

But, hey, I'm sure nobody has thought of any of this stuff and you know better than the people who have a running facility, right?

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 1) 113

OK, pick your damned whining ... either it's not as efficient as the sun, or it's more efficient than the greenhouse.

I assume at this point you're just moving the goal posts so you have something to complain about?

It can be a lot less efficient than the sun, and also be a lot more efficient than a green house. And you don't need to ship it half way around the world in the winter.

Honestly, WTF are you complaining about now? This doesn't sound like a problem with the summary, it sounds like a problem with the poster.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 3, Insightful) 113

Which nobody is claiming ... what they're saying is, given a finite amount of land, and the fact that nutrients are lost once you harvest and begin shipping ... you can also grow some food close to where the people who will eat it actually live. And you can do it year round.

Efficiency, in this case, includes year round production, shipping, and the ability to have certain kinds of fresh produce without having to ship it around the world.

Unless you have a way to ship lettuce from Peru to London which is solar powered, you're kind of missing one of the points. Local production has its own efficiencies and benefits.

Comment Re:Underground scene (Score 2) 113

Ah, but if you're using fancy LEDs instead of big enormous power hungry lamps ... how many LEDs can you run for the cost of a couple of those huge lights?

If you don't have several kilowats of lighting to deal with, putting out all that excess heat, just how noticeable is it likely to be?

A few tens of watts versus a few thousand changes a lot ... that's a light bulb or an air conditioning unit instead of the power meter spinning enough to be noticeable.

Comment Re:Bullshit (Score 4, Informative) 113

So, I had to type "led gree" into Google to have it auto-suggest "led greenhouse lights", and get hits from Amazon, Home Depot, Phillips, and a bunch of other sites.

Maybe your current knowledge of LEDs for growing plants is outdated and thy actually have the technology for this? Because the sheer number of hits I got tells me it's real technology.

I have no idea about the pesticides, but people did farming for thousands of years without pesticides ... so I'm not convinced it's not possible to grow plants without pesticides.

Comment Re:Cheap (Score 2) 93

Oh, I have no doubt that Taser is overcharging ... and I strongly suspect they're not as secure and robust as they need to be for something warehousing police data. But the cost of increased storage is seldom limited solely by the cost of the media.

And for legal purposes of any organization with a real retention schedule for whom failing to comply is a risk ... you can't just buy a cheap hard drive and pretend you've solved the problem.

If these things are going to be legal records, they need to be secure, backed up, under a strict retention schedule, retrievable.

Which tells me if you think the added cost of that kind of storage is 'crap' you've probably never done it.

Sure, they're probably gouging, but there better be more to it than just slapping in cheap drives to a cheap machine ... or they'll find themselves explaining to a whole bunch of police forces why they're doing that.

Unless of course all of these police forces have been hoodwinked into buying a system with a license which says "this system may or may not work, but we're not responsible if it doesn't". In which case law enforcement are really terrible at IT contracts.

Comment Re:So, new group of people is getting the money no (Score 1) 141

No .. .corporations give continuity to a legal entity which can outlast humans ... if we start saying corporations have no culpability when their management turns over they could essentially give themselves a get out of jail free card ... "Oh, sorry, we have a new board so we get a clean slate".

And that will pretty much mean we're all completely fucked, because corporations will never be liable for anything every again.

As an entity, the corporation better still be responsible, or you can expect every company to start playing music chairs with the board to allow them to engage in egregiously illegal activity.

Individuals might be in some ways shielded from legal/criminal liability ... but no way in hell we need to be thinking about how to give corporations a legal loophole which will allow them to do anything they please.

Comment Re:Well... (Score 1) 141

Seriously, the past couple years it has reached the point where I'm questioning if half the things I'm reading online are even genuine, or just shilled marketing from some PR team to push an agenda or product.

Half? Wow, you're optimistic.

I see FAR too many things which are basically written as press releases, passed off in the media as an article, and which has a tiny little footnote indicating it's a press release.

Print media does this this too. They'll put it as a "special feature" or some other crap, and you have to look really close to realize it's really a multi-page ad posing as an in depth series of articles.

I have long since developed a strong distrust of the source of information, because it seems like increasingly "articles" and "science reporting" and "reviews" is code for "written by PR shills and other paid entities whose job it is to conceal who pays for producing this".

I can't even count how many "science articles" you see which if you follow who the "Institute for Corporate Factoids" really is (no, I made that up) will be an industry-paid for entity whose mandate it is to produce papers saying how awesome industry-X is doing.

We have definitely been inundated with so much crap, lies, and propaganda that it is difficult to tell what's honest anymore. So assume they're all lying assholes, and save yourself the time.

"Can you program?" "Well, I'm literate, if that's what you mean!"