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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:No relation to fracking is what the big media (Score 3, Interesting) 111

The natural gas industry spends billions of dollars to capture methane for sale and combustion.

This methane plume represents millions of dollars lost (possibly billions since its so large) -- if NASA can locate the source, I'm sure more than one oil & gas company would be more than happy to keep all that money from blowing away with the wind.

Comment: Re:Limited 'show' here. (Score 1) 202

by xdor (#49320643) Attached to: Leaked Snowden Docs Show Canada's "False Flag" Operations

This just affirms doubts concerning the US claims of North Korean hacking Sony Pictures or any-given-hullabaloo about cyber attacks.

Perhaps it's all a deception to achieve some political end?

Or perhaps Snowden and Russia, et. all are trying to undermine our trust in the supreme integrity of our not-to-be-quesitoned leaders :)

Comment: High-Beta Fusion (Score 1) 214

by xdor (#49234717) Attached to: Billionaire Teams Up With NASA To Mine the Moon

If the SkunkWorks claim is legit about having a working idea for a practical High-Beta Fusion reactor, the by-product of that reaction is Helium-3. So:

  1. We don't need a Helium-3/Thorium reactor
  2. If we did, the High Beta reactor could produce the Helium 3 for it

The added nifty-ness of SkunkWork's reactor is that a requires Tritium: a by-product of existing nuclear fission reactors! So cleans up existing nuclear waste (waste-water, anyway) and creates energy and creates Helium-3! Almost too good to be true...

Don't really know why you need to go to the moon for Helium-3 if you can make it while generating power. Of course if we need copper or gallium arsenide or something and the moon has it, maybe that's worth it too.

Comment: Re:"Good News" is Relative (Score 2) 85

by xdor (#49215647) Attached to: Game of Drones: As US Dithers, Rivals Get a Head Start

You have the right idea. I would hope you would shoot down a drone flying low over your property.

The problem is the FAA is claiming I can't fly a drone over your property at your request in order to provide some service (crop inspection, land survey, etc.) because they are claiming (incorrectly IMO) that they own all the airspace over your land.

I would rather private property air-rights were increased to 1200 feet (right now they are arguably somewhere between 83 and 500 feet, except for those idiots in Oregon that ceded air-rights to the state from ankle-height). I don't think the FAA has the rights to restrict what you do with your airspace: and that's what they are trying to do.

In the end: I wouldn't worry about the drones you can see and shoot down with your shotgun (and you should): it's the ones you can't see you should be concerned about.

Money can't buy love, but it improves your bargaining position. -- Christopher Marlowe