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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Try again (Score 1) 336

Contrary to your statement "They never told us WHY it got rejected." they clearly stated WHY. It is the 4th solar farm in the same small town of 800 people. It further states that the reason power companies want to build in these areas is because they can acquire land from not so wealthy people on the cheap, taking advantage of the financial situation many families are in (largely due to corporate influence on Agricultural business and economics at a much larger scale). It also discusses a professor who believes this causes long term damage to the agricultural industry.

Since I actually did read TFA, it makes me wonder who actually started the disinformation campaign.

The original article said this not the new "correcting" one? Because if so then that's on my reading comprehension because I remember a lot of the other points and i specifically don't remember reading WHY because that was my question at the end.

Comment Re:Just as I suspected... (Score 1) 336

To be fair it was never said that "sucking up the energy" is WHY it got rejected. It's just said that they had to literally explain to someone complaining that this was not the case and this new article does not contradict that. They never told us WHY it got rejected. The original article was just on the stupid complaints that people brought up to try to reject it.

Here is the arstechnica headline linked to from slashdot: "North Carolina citizenry defeat pernicious Big Solar plan to suck up the Sun" http://arstechnica.com/science...

Fromt the more popular press, here's the Huffington post (yeah, I know), article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... Solar Farm Rejected Amid Fears It Will 'Suck Up The Sun's Energy' Residents were concerned it would stop plants from growing and cause cancer.

There is no other way to interpret the articles than that the town rejected the solar plant due to sun-sucking fears. The authors intentionally miswrote the story to give the reader a laugh at the rubes.

fair point. I was mostly referring to a specific article linked here on SD. But I didn't check the other headlines. That said headlines are intentionally clickbaity. I will go ahead and assume the text agrees with the article but if it doesn't that doesn't invalidate my point. Which was that the original articles never said that was what happened. They HEAVILY implied it through various means like even mentioning an idiot who thinks solar panels steal energy that plants need but they never said that's what happened. If those article however DO say that in the text then sure that's fair.

Comment Re:Just as I suspected... (Score 1) 336

What fact did the 'Net or Social Media get wrong, or can you even answer that question?

1. The town does not oppose solar farms, just one at that location.

2. The fourth solar farm to be built was not rejected because it would "soak up the sun".

Who could imagine, a small rural town might have a couple of people who don't understand solar power, and that those couple of people would be paraded in front of the world as representing every person in that town. I hope you don't live somewhere where you might find some ignorant people who are made into your town spokesmen by a media looking for web traffic and eyeballs.

To be fair it was never said that "sucking up the energy" is WHY it got rejected. It's just said that they had to literally explain to someone complaining that this was not the case and this new article does not contradict that. They never told us WHY it got rejected. The original article was just on the stupid complaints that people brought up to try to reject it.

Though yes it's pretty important that they already have three solar farms.. that's almost negligant.

Comment Re: more details (Score 1) 80

but these aren't new costs. These are costs they had when they started this. They should include those costs and start everyone at 5GB then if everyone is hitting the ceiling they could have raised to 10 and everyone would be talking about how awesome OneDrive is rather than how annoying it is.

Comment How young is slashdot to not remember AOL? (Score 2) 49

AOL had unsend. It had unsend because everything was under their control. As far as I can tell it's the only way to do unsend and it's the first sign of a system that's entirely under their control. Send is send. You can't pull back a fired bullet and you shouldn't be trying to unsend messages either.

Comment Re:Not even close. (Score 1) 104

I'm always desperately confused by Exploding Kittens. Everything I saw in the kickstarter was that it wasn't a fun game. Then when they finally released gameplay videos. I was still lost as to why I would want it. And yet it kept making more and more. But that's a fairly accurate description. "War without the strategic depth". I'm gonna steal that.

Comment Re:What's the problem? (Score 2) 108

I think the whole case is pointless. It simply makes no sense to convict anyone for something they didn't do. There was no crime, there was no possibility of crime happening.

that doesn't make sense. Just because a crime didn't happen doesn't mean a crime wouldn't have happened. By that logic every crime stopped prematurely lacks the fruit for conviction because it didn't happen

It only proves that he could trigger the detonation of a bomb to kill people if manipulated by someone. But being such a person is clearly not a crime. Maybe this could be a reason for supervision and psychological support, but 30 years in prison is ridiculous.

This is the core of the argument. That anyone could be manipulated into pushing the button. But was he going to push the button or was he manipulated into it. That's the difference between a criminal who was stopped before he did something horrific and a guy who got caught up. The courts have thus far decided on the former and the article attempts to present that it's more likely he was manipulated. And they do this by showing all the ways he was manipulated. All the missing evidence that was claimed to have proven he was already a danger.

Comment But is it really that bad? (Score 1) 154

While I have no interest in going to Mississippi for a number of reasons. I question whether there might be value in having places that aren't as connected.

It will drain your town of young people and leave your business in the dust.

while i can imagine this is a real concern. Being untapped in doesn't necessarily have to be the be all end all. It's not necessarily as bad as we the tapped in make it seem.

Comment Re: Work for free!! (Score 1) 124

worth doing to establish contacts

I think the point of contention is whether such a $1 coder would actually establish contacts and whether those contacts would be worthwhile in any immediacy. Worthwhile meaning things like leading to more high paying jobs in the future because if they're being called back for bottom of the barrel prices again then this was a waste of her time.

Comment Re:Youth who fail their social responsibilities. (Score 1) 167

Consider though, through a combination of nagative actions and inactions, these youth have had it made perfectly clear that they will never be accepted into society as full and equal members. Is it surprising that they formed their own society that doesn't really give a rats ass about the society that marginalized them?

It seems like a fairly rational response.

wow chicken and egg much?

these youth have had it made perfectly clear that they will never be accepted into society as full and equal members

Or maybe society has made it very clear that they will never be accepted into society as full and equal members so they stop trying. Considering that's the message of hip hop maybe we outta listen to what they're saying.

Slashdot Top Deals

The trouble with doing something right the first time is that nobody appreciates how difficult it was.

Working...