Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Ahh Government IT projects.... (Score 2) 565

Always done half assed by a contractor that barely has the skills to do the job. Honestly, who was the consultant because they were no talent n00bs in gauging the amount of traffic these sites would expect. Even if it is only an initial spike in traffic they could have EASILY paid for temporary increased infrastructure from places like rackspace to handle the first 3 months easily.

Plus the number of outright failures and nasty bugs being reported makes me even wonder if they tested the sites.

Comment Slashdot copies Gawker.... (Score 1) 1191

Oh dear god, even slower loading and even more CSS and JS to make it even more of a bandwidth hog.

How about writing it for speed and less ohh shiny? Really JS fade in of photos?

I am not against a redesign, I am against the rampaging throngs of Webdesigners that think more and more shiny is far more important than load times and useability.

Comment Re:Caspar Bowden is kidding himself. (Score 1) 199

Do need to get rid of your speedpass, Just randomly steal a neighbors unit off their dash every morning.
TPMS is a joke anyways.
Same for the plates, snag the car's plate at the same time. Bonus points of you attach them magnetically and swap with your own so they never know and your data is used to create noise in the system.

Bank accounts and CC is also easy to spoof/ use non attached if you know where to look.
And you can easily communicate safely via the internet if you have an IQ over 100. I assume he does.

All of the basis are easily retooled to create a useless pattern of noise to hide in.

Comment Re:This is news? (Score 2, Informative) 138

"I see it differently. In real life we pay for cops via taxes. Part of their job is to offer advice and even survey your home for ways that criminals might break in. It's part of the service."

What utopia is that that you live in? Because here in the USA they do not do this at all. The police advice to me is, "do not own a weapon, in the case of a home invasion hide under your bed and call the police. Do not fortify your doors and windows as that is a crime."

Yes, Fortification of doors and windows in the USA is a CRIME. It makes it harder for cops to raid your home if they need to.

Comment Re:Regulated monopolies (Score 1) 270

Of course you can go elsewhere. You can go to your home improvement store and buy insulation and LED bulbs, thereby reducing your consumption.

First off that isn't "going elsewhere". Second off, I've already done that. My house is actually pretty energy efficient. This in no way solves the problem of having a monopoly provider of energy.

You could put solar panels on your rooftop and net meter, thereby bringing your consumption to zero.

So I'm supposed to spend $20,000 (yes I've priced it) to eliminate a $200/month electric bill? That's 8+ years before breakeven at best and I can't be sure I'll live at my current house that long. Furthermore it doesn't take me off the grid. It merely makes me a net zero user. Sometimes I'll still need to tap into the power grid.

You can use oil or gas to heat instead of electric, and you can use gas to cook instead of electric.

I do use gas but where I live the gas utility and the electric utility are the same company. I cannot turn gas into electricity cheaper than the electric company can.

Hell, you could get really feisty like Boulder, CO and try to become a municipal utility, removing your entire city or town from the utility's territory.

Terrific. I trade one monopoly for a different monopoly.

In most or all of CA, TX, ND, SD, MN, WI, IA, IL, IN, MO, MI, OH, PA, NJ, MD, DE, and WV, to be joined by NE, KS, and OK in Mar 2014, the power plants are dispatched by merit. That means only the lowest cost generating stations operate, so they all fight to lower costs, and hence bids, to make sure they get to produce electricity for us and money for themselves.

I live in one of those states and I assure you that NONE of the savings get passed along to me as the consumer. In most places in my state there is one option for gas and one option for electricity. Occasionally the two big power companies compete but not in many places. It doesn't matter at all to me what it costs them to generate the power if I don't get to share in any of the savings. My electric rates don't change just because the cost of natural gas is relatively low at the moment. The only way I would see the benefits would be if I had more than one company with a power line connected to my house. But if that were the case then the cost of distribution would be higher because power utilities tend to me natural monopolies.

Comment This solves nothing (Score -1) 233

the development of a novel strategy for microbial gasoline production through metabolic engineering of E. coli."

Isn't the problem the fact that we are burning gasoline and other petroleum products? Using bugs to create more fossil fuels is hardly more ecologically sound than pumping out the hydro-carbons produced millions of years ago by different creatures. Same action just time shifted. We're still eventually pumping a bunch of carbon and other problem gases into the atmosphere which is what is causing all the problems at the end of the day. At best it mitigates some geo-political tensions but does nothing to solve the problem that fossil fuels are bad for the environment.

Comment Fixed costs with no profit (Score 1) 270

Mothballing a nuclear plant shouldn't be an issue at all, many plants have stayed offline for a year or more due to regulatory problems, if they can be kept offline for one year I can't see why they can't be kept offline for 5

There are a lot of costs with keeping them offline. Personnel, servicing, inspections, security, and lots of other high fixed costs that don't go away just because the plant is not producing electricity. For a relatively short time it might make sense to bear these costs but for periods of more than 1-2 years the economics start to look really bad. Nuke plants have huge operating expenses and they generate not a dime of profit unless they are producing electricity. Would you shut down your business for 5 years while still paying a lot of money in the uncertain hope that it might be profitable someday?

Virtually every nuke plant is unique and there is a LOT of institutional knowledge that goes into operating each one. Shut down for several years and a lot of those people are going to move on to other things. Do you really want to keep paying staff for 5 years for them to do essentially nothing even if they are willing? Hard to justify doing that to company shareholders.

Comment Regulated monopolies (Score 4, Informative) 270

Am I alone in wondering why the cost to the consumer remains the same?

Power utilities are regulated and the prices they charge to consumers are typically regulated as well. Since in most areas they are a monopoly you should expect them to charge the highest amount permitted by the local regulating body and not a penny less. Not like you can go anywhere else. Where I live I have precisely one option for electricity and one option for natural gas. The power company knows this and behaves accordingly. Even in areas where there is more than one option they basically are an oligopoly which isn't much different from a pricing standpoint. They all know there is little incentive to compete.

Comment Decommissioning (Score 1) 270

So what happens when a nuclear plant runs into financial difficulty?

It gets decommissioned. Still expensive but less expensive than operating at a significant loss over time. Nuke plants aren't like gas or coal plants where they can be mothballed and then restarted later easily. (I'm sure it's technically possible but apparently very problematic)

Slashdot Top Deals

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Working...