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


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Can the power grid support it? (Score 1) 171

Most transformers you see on poles are designed to cool down at night when usage goes down

Seriously? I would love to hear more about that. It seems highly unlikely that something which handles the heat of day with load from air conditioning should struggle with cooling at night. In areas where air conditioning is unnecessary, cooling is probably not a problem at all.

Comment Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score 1) 524

For example?

For example, replication of effort for no reason other than to pump and dump. There are whole companies IPO'd for no reason other than to pump and dump. Or how about building garbage to produce future sales, like when Apple puts a garbage battery into a cellphone, or even cellphones without replaceable batteries? It's been years now that old phones were good enough to act as phones, if only they didn't fail prematurely. Cars are the same way; there are tons of parts which could be designed to last much longer, but they aren't because that would extend the sales cycle. Up to a third of a vehicle's lifetime energy consumption is in its production. It's not unrealistic to keep cars twice as long on average as we do now, if they're designed for easy maintenance and use durable parts like polyurethane bushings and heim joints. Dealerships don't want to lose thousands of dollars in revenue from refreshing tired suspension parts. But that's half bullshit work that doesn't even have to take place. Advertising firms producing advertising that nobody is even going to see. Consumer goods made in China, shipped to the USA, never sold because they are crap, shipped to the dollar store where most of them never sell, shipped to a landfill where they leach toxics into the ground. Nobody ever uses them, but we all pay for the energy cost of their production. Most buildings are built like total shit, and out of flammables. Big parts of cities catch on fire repeatedly throughout history, and then we build them all over again, out of more flammable materials. Even if they don't burn down, they'll fall down within a century because they're built out of thin sticks (remember when a 2x6 was a 2x6? Houses built that way which weren't washed away in a flood or burned down are still standing.) and Chinese sheet rock. We make coins whose monetary value is not only less than their actual cost of production, but less than their energy cost of production. We make thousands of tons of clothing no one will ever wear, which gets shipped to the first world, shipped to stores, put on racks, taken off racks, shipped to the third world, picked through to find the natural fabrics (rapidly vanishing due to climate change), and the remainder landfilled. The environmental cost of the textile industry is beyond ridiculous. We ask people to commute to jobs which could be done remotely, and how many of those jobs need to be done at all? Whole industries exist because of failings in our government, like health insurance. Cryptocurrency is a relatively minor line item, but it is literally burning up the biosphere to create tokens.

There are examples of waste literally everywhere you look, unless you're in a mud hut. Or maybe a shipping container home. Shipping containers are stacking up at ports because once they pass through certain ports and are fumigated with specific chemicals (usually horrendously toxic ones, as you might imagine) they are no longer permitted in certain other ports, because of the toxicity. Since we sell recycled steel to other nations for pennies on the ton, it's not actually worth it to recycle them, so in the main they are just sitting around rusting and losing intrinsic value when we could be using them to build fireproof, earthquake-proof buildings.

IANAE(conomist) and these are examples I could come up with just off the top of my head.

Comment Re:Still conflating Meltdown with Spectre (Score 1) 204

If they already thought AMD was cheaper, then literally nothing changed.

They didn't think AMD had a lower TCO. But now intel's TCO is going to jump substantially, because they're giving less power. Their claim to fame has long been power efficiency. They no longer have that, because of the reduction in IPC due to mitigation of this complete failure to be responsible in silicon design. Now they will know that AMD is cheaper, when before the situation was muddied by Intel's cheating in silicon.

Your cost analysis ignores a lot of factors; and the actual range is more like 0-35%.

That is horseshit, there have been actual benchmarks showing more than 35%. You're reducing the upper and lower bounds beyond what has been proven in the real world. Stop fellating Intel.

Comment Re:What a clusterfuck (Score 1) 84

To be honest, that PR is a great reason for why you'd want to use someone else's left padding function. Turns out there are about 100 ways to subtly screw it up in JavaScript, so it makes sense to collect everyone's wisdom in a single place rather than everyone trying to re-invent that (surprisingly non-trivial) wheel.

Comment Re:Criminal? (Score 1) 311

Seems to me a lot of the things that can make a senator very wealthy and influential can also kind of accidentally make you a felon if you happen to get caught at it. The senators are probably aware of that and would rather not risk their shiny income in the event they do accidentally get caught at it. Felons in general probably have a better approval rating than Congress, anyway.

Comment Re: What did you THINK would happen? (Score 1) 412

By that reasoning, the cop wasn't the murderer either. The guy was killed by a bullet that wasn't even attached to the gun he was holding at the time.

This is the point I keep going back and forth on. But no, your post has clinched it for me. The cop is the murderer. Because the whole point of sending a cop and not a cruise missile or a manhack or a doberman is that he's supposed to be capable of not firing the gun.

Comment Re:Yes. Yes it is. (Score 1) 524

There are environmental costs to having those warm bodies sitting around at home all day, consuming fossil fuels and electricity, causing additional pollution with their waste products while they contrbute zero productivity (as opposed to suboptimal, but non-zero productivity by having them carry out 'bullshit make-work').

No. Stop. You have this wholly wrong. It is better for the world if they sit at home and watch American Gladiators than if they go to some bullshit job and do something we don't actually need them to do, which consumes even more energy than staying at home and getting dumber.

If we are to measure the worth of people's existence by their net contribution/cost on the biosphere, do you really want to take this line of logic to its inevitable conclusion?

Yes, because I have actually thought this through, like you clearly haven't. Have you ever read the Mars trilogy? It spends a lot more time on eco-economics than I reasonably could in a Slashdot post.

At least while working, some will have the opportunities and incentive to become more productive.

UBI doesn't permit you to live high on the hog, or at least that's not the concept. If you want more than a banal, minimal existence, you're going to have to work for it. There is still plenty of incentive to produce, and there's still plenty of opportunity to do so as well. It frees people up to do neutral or negative things, certainly, but it also frees them to do positive things. They can spend their time making themselves better people, or doing things for other people. They can trade labor, or engage in barter, or work a side job to get spending money.

I am not against work. Work is how things get done. I am against senseless work which wastes energy and materials whose production costs are debited from our collective future. The notion that our value as a being is based on what we do for society is not without merit, but we must subtract what we do to society from the balance in order to come to a fair accounting.

Comment Re:What did you THINK would happen? (Score 4, Insightful) 412

OK, enough with the ignorance already. Every US military leader would not take kindly to being labeled a mass murderer,

...but most of them absolutely are, because they were not fighting a war to protect people, but to protect profits . Who gives a fuck how they feel about being called what they are? Ignorance is no excuse, either. It's your responsibility to do your homework before killing people.

Also intent matters, which is exactly why he's being charged with involuntary manslaughter and not murder.

That's wrong, though. His intent was to get someone killed. He should be charged with first-degree murder, since it was "willful and premeditated with malice aforethought." Or with being an accessory or accomplice to same, as I have argued, although I am fast coming around to the idea that the cop is the accomplice (and guilty of voluntary manslaughter) and the SWATter is the murderer in the first degree. He planned the murder (via SWAT team) and then carried it out. The only reason anyone SWATs anyone is because they know that it is dangerous, and that the danger goes up to and includes the death of the victim (and possibly innocent bystanders, maybe even babies.)

Comment Re: What did you THINK would happen? (Score 1, Insightful) 412

But this guy swatted multiple persons in multiple states! Even if our police is far less trigger happy, I am quite shure that you could get someone killed if you repeat the swatting often enough.

Get someone killed? Yes. Kill someone? No.

He is a murderer. No police failure could change that.

No, he is not a murderer. He is an accomplice or accessory to murder. The cop who killed the victim is a murderer.

Comment Re:Tulips... (Score 2) 324

By your definition the entire stock system is of no value.

It's actually of negative value, because its success is predicated upon the destruction of our biosphere — that is after all how companies operate. If you made corporations responsible for their waste tomorrow, the stock market would crash on the same day because most of those entities would be unable to turn a profit while complying, and they would therefore go rapidly out of business.

We all pay, with our health and lifespans, for the maintenance of the corporate beast.

Comment Re:What did you THINK would happen? (Score 3, Insightful) 412

But the bulk of the burden of this "incident" (for lack of a better term.. maybe "debacle"?) falls squarely upon the guy who made the false report,

Bull. Fucking. Shit. The bulk of the burden falls directly upon the cop who pulled the trigger. A lesser share of it goes to the piece of shit who called the cops. An even lesser share of it goes to the piece of shit who gave someone else's address when asked for his own. The cops were locked and loaded, the guy who called the cops pulled the trigger, but the guy who gave someone else's address to someone who wanted to have him killed pointed the gun.

But you can never, ever take the ultimate responsibility out of the shooter's hands. He has the ultimate responsibility to prevent an unwarranted shooting, whether he is a cop or not. Anyone who cannot handle that responsibility should be disarmed immediately. That goes with the territory.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing recedes like success. -- Walter Winchell