Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Excess (Score 1) 258

Okay, you seem to have a few problems going on here.

For one, I'm talking about Photovoltaics and you seem to be alternating between PV and solar-thermal. This should have been evident because the very first thing I typed was "Solar PV..."

I don't think I'm the one with a reading comprehension problem here. I suppose it's also possible that you simply don't know anything and can't tell the difference.

Comment Re:OpenOffice kind of sucked (Score 1) 161

Or Scribus. Or TeX. Or anything that makes PDFs.

Has Scribus stopped exploding? I found that if you tried to do anything more complex than a newsletter, it was crashes all the way down. Went back to using Adobe CS2 in a VM and I couldn't be happier compared to using Scribus and Inkscape, even if it is a bit poky.

Comment Re:OpenOffice kind of sucked (Score 1) 161

I gotta break this to you, because it's hilarious... so did Wordpenis, I mean wordpervert, I mean wordperfect.* It had no problem with this even back in the DOS days.

* This is what we called this stuff back then, adults and not-so-adults alike, and if you don't like it, you can suck me while I'm Micro$oft on some Compu$erve.

Comment Re:Excess (Score 1) 258

Wide-spread management incurs higher total cost.

Solar PV has essentially zero maintenance cost once installed.

Plus, with the benefit of the power being produced where it is actually used, you eliminate the cost of building and maintaining the vast majority of infrastructure that would be required for a central plant.

On top of that, the people who install the systems reap direct financial benefits through lower utility bills.

Up-front costs are higher in total, due to the need to shuffle electricians around

I get the impression that you have no idea what you're talking about...

The problems with deploying in wide area are large. Land use is inefficient

Wrong. The land in question is already being used for something else: housing. In essence there is zero additional land use. It doesn't get more efficient than that.

Transmission to point-of-use incurs more loss

You're producing *at* the point of use. There is essentially no transmission required.

That's another way of saying, "You close your eyes and pretend it's not there."

No, that's explaining the difference between pissing in your cornflakes and pissing in the ocean.

Do you want to cut down 5 million acres of forest or 5 million acres of forest?

No, and I just explained why we wouldn't have to. I get the impression that you're either have no actual experience with solar power or you're being deliberately obtuse.

Comment Re:Open source SCO (Score 1) 193

Have you ever used SCO?
I have. It wasn't a bad system.

Bad is a strong word. What it was? Dumb. It had old versions of everything and a non-standard mail daemon that totally failed to make anything easier than just using sendmail... so why not just use sendmail? They also wanted $INFINITY dollars for a compiler, which ultimately let Linux kill them. You want people to pay hundreds for the OS and pay hundreds again for a single compiler license while Linux will give it all to you for free and do everything SCO Unix does, to boot? HAHAHAAHAHAHA.

SCO Xenix was by far the best OS that would run on a 286. But by the time the 486 was a thing, say, there was no longer a reason to run anything from SCO.

Comment Well, that's a terrible idea (Score 1) 69

Any time someone proposes an artificial tree as a solution, you know they are an asshole. Put a real tree there. It will use solar power to turn atmospheric CO2 into solid fuel. It really doesn't get any better than that. You would get more power from one tree-sized solar plant than from a whole forest of artificial trees that don't make air, don't clean air, and don't self-repair.

Comment Re:You have to start somewhere (Score 2) 77

Try it yourself if you dare: delete your account, wait a couple of weeks, and create a new one. Without doing anything, all of your old "friends" will pop up in the friend suggestions... because they already know who they are.

You know, while you're correct about what they're doing, this doesn't prove anything at all. All they have to do is keep a record of your email address as a past friend on everyone else's accounts. Then they could completely scrub your account, and this would still happen.

Comment Re:green? (Score 1) 258

Burning coal puts nuclear material into the atmosphere, including tons of fissile uranium per year.

One: no it does not, the uranium/thorium is in the ashes.

Yes, most of which goes right out the fucking stack. We can find out-of-compliance power plants in this country literally as fast as we can pay people to climb the stacks and probe them.

Two: no it does not in general. Only coal that is mined from mines that have that particular "contamination" obviously can set free uranium/thorium. Or were the trees from which the coal formed made from uranium? I don't think so.

Wrong again, dildo

The environmental cost of solar, especially non-PV systems or modern PV systems which use ever-vanishing quantities of rare earths or even organic materials, is minuscule compared to any fossil fuel.

One: wrong, because PV systems don't use rare earths.

Who told you that? They lied to you, and now you're being a stupid fuck.

Two: wrong still, as rare earths are not "vanishing". They are very abundant on the planet, they are misnamed because of some issues when they got "discovered".

What I meant was that the panels use less and less rare earths. Sorry I confused you. Apparently that's quite easy, so I'm not very sorry.

Three: wrong, organic materials are a non issue if you use them for PV or other electronics.

My post was pro-solar, stupid. Try reading it again.

Slashdot Top Deals

Were there fewer fools, knaves would starve. - Anonymous