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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Coal power cars make little sense (Score 1) 257

Have you considered that one day the electric power to fuel these cars may not be coming from "dirty sources". If we have a chain like this "dirty -> clean" which enables the possibility of " clean -> clean", isn't that better than a chain which leads from " [clean|dirty] -> no change dirty"? Supposing we do wean ourselves off of the fossil fuel industry as you may envision. Do you think that involves have "dirty" cars and "clean" supply chains? Converting electricity and hydrogen [ yes electricity can be collected directly from "clean sources" and hydrogen can be formed from H20 using electricity] to carbon may be feasible one day, but there is no reason do that if we have electric or hydrogen powered cars which use this clean energy. Of course electric cars cost more to produce now, blah blah blah, more pollution goes into their production, blah blah blah, but the first problem is a problem of scale, and the second problem can be eliminated by using "clean" energy sources in their production.[ another part of the clean supply chain ]. We are going to have to make a serious commitment. Or is that the point "we will have little need for carbon once we switch" is the part that is bothering the "sceptics"? Even if you don't care where we get our energy from, it still has to be there.

Comment Re:write on weibo, go to readjustment camp... (Score 1) 222

I never talked about the punishments of the "crimes" or whether they were in proportion to the "offense" or that government's using technology to spy on citizens is good. In fact I disagree. This is selective punishment. Perhaps I should have said: "Although China still has overly broad laws on the books, they are trying to fight technology with technology...We are doing it here, in a more specific and cloak-and-dagger way, but we should not try to specify the time and place for technology, which we are attempting to do en-masse". For all: more freedom = better freedom. If someone wants to block our connection fine, then let us find ways to unblock it. If it is really worth the investment, which will be a deterrent, then find a way to re-block it otherwise spending money on such a thing will prove to be unfeasible. Laws need to be fixed, technology needs to improve. This freedom is one of the reasons why TOR is still in the game, America will continue to have an advantage and why we are advancing in general. How about a new Amendment: the freedom to develop technology?

Comment Re:What's the difference between China and EU? (Score 1) 222

What I was trying to point out, while core dumping, we should not be trusting to put "all of our eggs in one basket", and trust an entity that could one day turn out not to be our friend. It is a tale of two countries if you will. BTW part of reading is seeing what you can get out of something even if it is not as eloquent as you are.

Comment Re:What's the difference between China and EU? (Score 3, Interesting) 222

There is an interesting irony in this. In China, which to my own opinion has been historically more oppressive, now you have the engineers and the scientists in charge of government (true) while as in Europe and the Americas, we have lawyers and businessmen in charge. It appears as though China is taking a technological approach to solving its perceived problems, such as searching for keywords, blocking, defeating TOR and the like, while in the West, our governments appear to be bent on passing laws and ordinances that tell companies and ourselves what we can install and use and how we must use it so we can justify charges c.f. recent attempts to codify in law backdoors into tech companies products and hiding what they are doing. The overly broad laws in China do not change but the technology is not as well hidden and grows. For example, China has setup fake Apple stores (this should be a warning) so that once an iPhone is jailbroken, it becomes easier to install malware on that person's iPhone in order to spy on the user to see if they have broken these laws. The government puts much effort into catching people without knowing they have committed a crime. In the West, laws are changing too fast and laws have become overly specific instead of broad. Nobody likes being told over and over which task to do and nobody likes being told how to do a task. The Chinese know that what they are doing is unpopular, but here, the government has to hide because perception will be that they are not doing the right thing if they are discovered, which says a lot about what they are doing. The government here seems to care more that they are doing the same unpopular things, but that have a history of goodwill which they are destroying, so we can continue to say "Here in the West". This should be a warning sign.

Comment From the same people (Score 3, Insightful) 325

who brought us the "Google includes its own advertisements in search" complainers. They developed the product, so they get to say how it behaves or how much of their own product they include with their own product. Or should we conclude that these companies represent a significant presence in our life that we should all pay a mandatory fee to them and treat them as otherwise some sort of necessary corporations that simply have to exist? But then they would be like governments. Because that is the only way we will have a say in what they produce, except with our wallets.

Comment How about tell them of the benefits (Score 3, Interesting) 127

And then let the incumbents try to explain, rather than having to dispute every negative claim about Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality would, instead of being tiered, would allow and has allowed each community to be treated equally. It would allow the Internet to be treated more like a utility. It is like how you receive water in your community now, everyone pays the same rate. If these guys think that the water company will allow them to get their water for little or less money and that somehow someone else would foot the bill for them because of a tiered structure, would you believe the water company? No they would probably only invest money that they were getting back from the community. If water was declared a right, then the company providing might be forced into providing set water. I can think of ways a person or a company can benefit from Net Neutrality. I will give three examples: Google and Facebook and Paypal. Mark Zuckerberg only had a few thousand in cash to start his first server farm, and I doubt the founders of Google had that much more. When Elon Musk came to the United States he had little cash and received $300 million from his part the sale of Paypal to Ebay. Where would Google, Facebook, Tesla and countless others be today without Net Neutrality? They depended on access of various users to be consistent when they were small and when they became large. Try explaining to poorer neighbourhoods that they could create a startup based upon money to pay and not being in a slow lane. The Internet is part of the American dream, we are not done yet. The results are plain to see.

Comment Not buying it (Score 2) 66

So if we give out more spectrum this will make it harder for data to be treated equally. Sounds more like Comcast et. al saying, hah! you see because we were granted spectrum and this dude (or these dudes) on the Internet said that it will make Net Neutrality harder to regulate, that is why in the future, our plans are to not follow Net Neutrality will pan out. Then when that happens, everybody is like "Why can't we have Net Neutrality" and Comcast et. al will say "Yeah, weren't you listening to those Internet dudes?" In other words they pay somebody to say that this will happen and then they make it happen, and then cite "natural causes" as a way to operate in contrast to Net Neutrality. Same thing with the "AT&T will delay 1Gb lines because of 'Net Neutrality'"...who is writing their training manual?

Comment Re:Cox is not Rightscorp's enforcer (Score 1) 187

Absolutely, if they have all the evidence sue them directly. Sounds like they are arguing on behalf of their "agent" Rightscorp, Inc. to do their dirty work. Also they want Cox to be the agent of Rightscorp. Pay up buddies. These guys can die in their own copyright labyrinth.

Comment In software speak (Score 1) 331

This is a 2-line patch on a bloated piece of software consisting of millions of lines of code, that uses hard-coded, recycled components using none of the standards software development techniques, that doesn't use API's, has no version control and is beta-tested on users before the finished product is delivered that causes the user to acknowledge a security deficit that can't be fixed by the user that was glued together by programmers who don't work for the same organization and have no network to help collaborate or organize their work.

Comment Re:You shouldn't need insurance for most things (Score 1) 739

This is complete nonsense in countries with public health care. Half of the reason why price-gouging doesn't exists is because most everybody carries a card which identifies their provider which is paid by the government through taxes or through a modest monthly fee i.e. here in Alberta it is approximately $60.00 Canadian per month for Blue Cross. The government (oooo bad word) regulates how much a doctor can charge for a covered service. Not all things are covered, however - only the things that are considered essential. So in Alberta, for instance, you can see the doctor regardless if you do or do not have the cash at the time. All it takes is a computer linked to the insurance provider to bill for the service. No gouging or extensive paperwork. The only "responsibility" is that you pay your bills within a reasonable period of time, not whether or not you have the cash on hand. No laws are needed other than that every doctor charges an appropriate fee. I have a question. The repubs in the states like to say how great the free market and capitalism work, and most people agree - for the most part they do. However, for the unfettered one, there is always a caveat like "if only monopolies didn't exist that go against public interest", or "if only the companies responsible for the mess would clean it up before they go bankrupt" or "we would have great infrastructure if only somebody would pay for the roads". How come so often under the fabled unfettered free market (Now I am adding my own in a reverse way), these objectives are seldom met except to say that under a "real free market system" they would be? I guess we just have to keep on hoping and trying.

Comment Re:Allocation of Scarce Resources, Oh My! (Score 1) 652

"Living on a Carbon Budget" - Parody of Living on a Prayer

Whoa, whoa, whoa
Once upon a time not long ago.

America used to only use coal
Koch brothers in control
Their down on their luck..
It's tough, so tough

Germany is 31% renewable
Working for her neighbours
She gives out her energy
For love, for love

Pielke says, "We've gotta hold on to what we've got"
It doesn't matter if we like solar a lot
We've got each other and that's a lot
For energy
We’ll give it a fill

Whoa, At 2035
We're almost there
Livin’ on a Carbon budget
Read my article and we'll make it - I swear
Whoa, livin on a Carbon budget

We need approximately 770 quads
Now the OCED holdin'in
What they used to make it talk
So tough so tough

China dreams of producing each day
Enough renewable energy
The USA whispers
"It's gonna be okay, someday"

Pielke says, "We've gotta hold on to what we've got"
It doesn't matter if we like solar a lot
We've got each other and that's a lot
For energy
We’ll give it a fill

Livin' on a Carbon budget

We've gotta hold on to coal ready or not
You live in the past if that's all that you've got

Whao
We’re almost there
Whao
Living on a Carbon budget
We’ll make it I swear.

"Sometimes insanity is the only alternative" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.

Working...