Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:10g matters not (Score 1) 68

On the other hand, I am working mainly in Home Office, and for me, those high transfer rates make sense, as I am not actually streaming from a single source at a time, but have several manufacturers and customer sites, where I often have to transfer software images, core files, error logs and be in a phone conference at the same time. And it should not degrade just because wife and children return home and want to watch some streams, each one with a different taste.

Comment Re: Who thought this was feasible? (Score 1) 163

If you overbuild wind (or solar) perhaps you could use the excess, when it exists, to drive processes that can be started and stopped quickly. My first thought was synthesizing kerosene, but I'm not sure how readily that could be pushed up and pulled down. Perhaps it would be better used to pump water uphill or some such. Then when the wind stops or the sun isn't shining you could use hydroelectric.

Comment Re: Obviously not! (Score 1) 163

Hydrogen is tricky, but liquid hydrogen doesn't need heavy containment.

FWIW, I think Hydrogen would be the better choice AFTER the conversion was made, but synthetic kerosene has a *much* smoother transition path. And you can use lots of already existing infrastructure. But to make synthetic kerosene scalable you need a standardized feedstock that you make it from.

Comment vs. nvme (Score 2) 54

I just assembled a 2TB nvme usb 3.2 drive for $129 for desktop backups.

At $229 for the rugged WD spinning rust this drive is going to be very niche.

You can have a 4TB "10 Gbps" drive for the same money.

I'm guessing it's SMR too? It's probably OK to leave for overnight backups but 130MB/s was exciting in 1999.

Students these days have huge datasets to work on and they're always starved for time.

Comment Re:Ethics? (Score 1) 70

If you think Apple is the only company to act in the manner, you are quite unobservant. (OTOH, I have no idea how often companies in the EU act in a similar manner.)

This is an artifact of the current legal system and both the laws and precedents that it has established. It's not happenstance. I trace this back to "santa clara vs union pacific railroad co.". It probably goes back further.

Since this is an artifact off the legal system, on should expect companies primarily operating under different legal systems to have different typical moral failures.

Comment Re:Who funded this "study"? (Score 1) 163

The economic reasons I've heard is that with an aging population, a much smaller percentage of younger folk need to support a much larger proportion of the elderly.

I really think that this argument doesn't work in a world with improving AI and robots, but it's true currently, and has been true for the last century or so. (Probably really true only since antibiotics supplemented public sanitation, though.)

Comment Re:Physics. In your face. (Score 1) 163

Sorry, biofuels CAN be carbon neutral. But it's more expensive to do it that way, so nobody does. Generally they're just greenwashing PR, so they don't try to make it actually work. Alternatively, they're a research project that gets written up as if it were a reasonable operational choice. (Or both, of course.)

This is more a problem with our decision making strategy than it is a technical problem, even though of course there are technical components. We are really poor at dealing with long term problems. Less poor at recognizing them. But we highly discount future costs.

Comment Re:Lighter than air (Score 1) 163

Use hot air with a hydrogen fuel to keep it hot. (Batteries MIGHT work for that.)

OTOH, it would be slow. There's no way around that. It could be a good replacement for a luxury liner, I suppose. And it might be useful for freight that wasn't too heavy and didn't have an extremely urgent delivery requirement. That's a pretty niche market.

Comment Re:Who thought this was feasible? (Score 3, Informative) 163

You can't make things work by just building wind-turbines. (Or solar cells.) You need to add large investments in energy storage and voltage regulation, and the ability to pour power into the grid episodically from random locations. This *is* the right way to go, but don't oversimplify things.

The current grid is not designed to accept random amounts of input from random locations. It's designed to be driven by base-line loads, like hydro, nuclear, coal, or gas. That's what was available when it was being designed. When variable sources get to be around 40% it becomes less stable. (That's what the various huge batteries have been added to handle...but the problem gets worse when the base-line load becomes a smaller fraction.)

The grid is **In the process** of being redesigned. But the redesign is not near completion. This is only partially because of existing commercial interests.

Slashdot Top Deals

No directory.

Working...